W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Possible *third* proposal for ISSUE-41 Distributed Extensibility

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:00:38 -0700
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Ennals, Robert" <robert.ennals@intel.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <0D2A501B-6076-4647-88DB-85A7503480C4@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

On Mar 19, 2010, at 5:34 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> [co-chair hat off]
> I don't believe that this proposal should be used by browsers to add  
> experimental features.
> Nor do I believe that this proposal should change parsing rules;  
> furthermore XML Namespaces are published in a separate document from  
> the XML specification, I see no reason why this proposal needs to be  
> in the HTML5 specification at all; but both are tangents, More here:
> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/04/08/HTML-Reunification
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0180.html
> Net: I believe that Author Conformance Requirements are the real  
> issue here, and until there is a coherent rationale for which  
> conformance requirements are included and which are not, we will  
> asymptotically approach a state where all implementation issues are  
> resolved and what remains is a document conformance issues:
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0314.html

For what it's worth, I don't think everyone agrees that ISSUE-41 is  
solely or primarily about authoring conformance. It seems to me we  
need to strive to be very clear about the target use cases for any  
given proposal, since different WG participants have very different  
perspectives on the nature of this issue.

> I'm awaiting for rationale to be provided using the only mechanism  
> available to request such:
>  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7034
> If there is a coherent rationale provided that I can then use as a  
> basis for filing individual bug reports on, I'll do that.  If not,  
> I'll escalate the issue and volunteer to write a change proposal  
> which revisits this from the top down.
> My recommendation (which nobody needs to follow) is that the third  
> proposal not be pursued at this time, and that depending on the  
> outcome of issue 41 and bug 7034, a proposal may be made later to  
> address authoring extensions, and that such a proposal is likely to  
> take the form of a separate document.

I don't think this proposal is significantly different from Rob's  
"Proposal X" in its effects on authoring conformance. I believe the  
only material difference is whether the prefix registry affects  
parsing. I believe that in both proposals, it affects document  
conformance in essentially the same way.

That being said, anyone is always free to propose additional documents.

Received on Friday, 19 March 2010 20:01:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:13 UTC