- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 15:00:14 -0700
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
On Jun 7, 2011, at 2:34 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > The question was: which one is authoritative if they disagree. Even if > you say that they won't disagree because they are created from the > same source, there will be corner cases where the Web developer > document may be incomplete compared to the UA document. I would > suspect that the UA document is more extensive and should therefore be > the more authoritative one over the Web developer document. Which section of the full spec is authoritative when two sections have different requirements for the same content? The answer is that neither is more authoritative -- it is just a bug in the spec and we would want to fix one of them. Less complete? Of course, some sections are less complete than other sections --- that's the whole point of providing a view that isn't dominated by poorly conceived and untested english descriptions of parsing algorithms. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here about what "authoritative" means? I would like to be able to say "this tool produces HTML5 content" and reference the author-view as the definition of HTML5 content. In fact, that is exactly what we as a working group agreed to in order to satisfy the objections that the full spec was filled with cruft that has nothing to do with the definition of HTML5 as content. It is a reasonable compromise. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2011 22:01:54 UTC