- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 09:00:52 +0100
- To: HTML WG LIST <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+efN5a4jTcQiKZN+xLkcx7WVi6rdP-9-tW5VmgYv9_H0Q@mail.gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> Date: Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:58 AM Subject: Re: Polyglot Markup Formal Objection Rationale To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> To a certain extent, using the terms "normative" and "non-normative" with regard to publishing W3C documents is a mis-nomer. The W3C does not label documents as normative or non-normative. It labels them as REC or NOTE. What determines if such a document is normative or not is not related to what the document calls itself, it relates to how other specifications (whether published by W3C or not) refer to it. A NOTE can be referenced as a normative document and a REC can be referenced as a non-normative document. So I suggest you de-focus on the notion of normativity, and instead simply focus on the advantages or disadvantages of using either REC or NOTE approach. On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>wrote: > At the HTML F2F, I was asked to provide rationale for my previously filed > formal objection to the Polyglot Markup specification. > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/**status/formal-objection-**status.html<http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/www-archive/2011May/**0050.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011May/0050.html> > > This rationale includes: > > 1. Why the html-polyglot authoring guidelines should be produced as a > *non-normative* document, and > 2. Why it *should not* be published on the recommendation track. > > 1. Normative vs. Non-Normative > > Specifications should be considered normative when they seek to define > implementation and authoring conformance criteria. Documents that merely > seek to describe authoring practices or provide tailored information to a > particular audience about content which is normatively defined elsewhere, > should be non-normative. > > The HTML5 specification already normatively defines the conformance > criteria for all of the features employed in both serialisations. The > necessary requirements to meet in order to produce a polyglot document are > inherently logical conclusions from these criteria. > > The polyglot guidelines only serves to document the overlap of the two > serialisations as a convenience for authors who wish to pursue this style > of document production, and should not try to normatively define that which > is already normatively defined in HTML5. > > Such duplication of normative definitions has the potential for > introducing unintentional conflict between the two specifications. By > ensuring that the polyglot guidelines remain non-normative, then it is > clear that, even in the case of such a conflict, the HTML5 specification's > normative requirements take precedence over the guidelines' non-normative > descriptions. > > 2. Recommendation Track vs. Note Track > > The Recommendation track implies a level of endorsement from the group > that I do not believe is warranted in the case of these guidelines. Note > that the boiler-plate Status section of a W3C Recommendation clearly states: > > "This document has been reviewed by W3C Members, by software > developers, and by other W3C groups and interested parties, and is > endorsed by the Director as a W3C Recommendation." > -- Pubrules (W3C) > > Publication as a recommendation could lead to the perception by the > greater web community that the HTML WG itself endorses and recommends the > adoption of these authoring practices by web developers. > > However, support among the working group members for producing or > recommending the production of polyglot documents is far from universal. > It is therefore not in the interests of the working group to either > discourage, nor endorse through the recommendation track, the authoring of > polyglot documents. > > Publication as a note, instead, allows authors to obtain information about > producing polyglot documents if they choose, without implying any such > endorsement, nor discouragement, from the working group itself. > > -- > Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software > http://lachy.id.au/ > http://www.opera.com/ > >
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 08:01:42 UTC