- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 22:09:45 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
- cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Paul Cotton wrote: >> Given that we would then have two documents with normative status >> describing how HTML is defined. Which of the two is authoritative if >> the two don't agree? > > Our goal is have the two documents agree - the author-only view is > generated directly from the HTML5 spec. Nevertheless it seems undesirable to have two different documents claim authority over what constitues valid HTML. I would much prefer the document containing only the author view of the spec to be explicitly informative and clearly marked as a subset of the full HTML5 spec published for the convenience of one target audience.
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2011 20:10:22 UTC