- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 07:06:51 -0700
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: HTML WG LIST <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 14:52 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote: >> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public Working >> Draft (FPWD) of the HTML5 Edition for Web Authors spec: >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110525/author/ >> >> Note that the result of the CfC[1] on issue-59[2] the WG previously >> decided maintain this document. What was overlooked at the time was >> publishing it[3]. > > I object to publishing this as a normative document unless there's > Status of the Document text explaining that in the case this document > and HTML5 proper disagree, the full HTML5 spec governs. > > I support publication if such text is included. > > I think it would be ideal if the text also encouraged discrepancies to > be filed as bugs. > > The following text or a substantially similar formulation would remove > my objection: > "This document is an automated redaction of the full HTML5 > specification. As such, the two documents are supposed to agree on > normative matters concerning Web authors. However, if the documents > disagree, this is a bug in the redaction process and the unredacted full > HTML specification takes precedence. Readers are encouraged to report > such discrepancies as bugs in the bug tracking system of the HTML WG." Yes. I like this text better than what Noah suggested. The thing I don't like about Noah's text is that it potentially creates more undefined behavior and undefined behavior is bad (not least because other spec writers have in the past treated undefined behavior as "we can do whatever we want here as the web shouldn't depend on any particular behavior anyway"). / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 14:07:50 UTC