- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:34:57 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > Option 1 > > "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." This wording seems fine. > Option 2 > > "These two specifications are generated from common base text and are > intended to be entirely consistent. Both are normative and > authoritative. With respect to any matters on which they (unexpectedly) > disagree, there is a bug in at least one, and neither specification is > authoritative with respect to the point(s) of disagreement. In such > cases we expect to resolve the bug by publishing versions that are > changed to be consistent." I object to this wording because it breaks the rule that normative text in normative documents give conformance criteria corresponding to the RFC2119 keywords used. A sufficiently careful reader would have to read *both* documents to deduce the real conformance criteria. The text as stated is also unclear about the scope over which both are authoritative. The fact that the author view is missing all the UA conformance criteria is not a problem (obviously), but if it misses a single authoring conformance criterion that is a problem.
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 07:35:33 UTC