W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Fwd: Polyglot Markup Formal Objection Rationale

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 17:56:54 +0100
Message-ID: <5097EFD6.4050304@lachy.id.au>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
CC: HTML WG LIST <public-html@w3.org>
On 2012-11-05 15:13, Glenn Adams wrote:
> OK, then go to back to something I asked previously, are you asserting that
> the Polyglot document cannot or should not make any normative statements?

I am asserting that it should not make normative statements regarding 
document conformance because it can, by definition, only describe the 
overlap of the HTML and XHTML serialisations.  All of the constraints 
descrived in it are inherently logical conclusions from the normative 
requirements in HTML5, and as such, do not need to be normatively 
defined twice.

The document should clarify that everything within it is non-normative. 
  Currently, only the introduction is labelled as such.

> Regarding publishing as a NOTE or REC, I notice (upon rereading) that the
> W3C Process Document states:
> "A Working Group Note is published by a chartered Working Group to indicate
> that work has ended on a particular topic."

> As such, unless the HTML WG believes there will be no more work done on
> advancing the Polyglot document, then it should not be published as a [WG]

No, you are wrong.  The process document also clearly states that a 
working group may resume work on it at any time by publishing newer 
versions as working drafts.

> So, to conclude, your FO appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what
> is permitted or required by the W3C Process:
> (1) a WG should not publish a TR as a NOTE if it expects further work on it;

Both REC and NOTE are end states of a document.  The process for 
reviving a note, however, is much simpler than modifying a recommendation.

> (3) a TR, whether REC or NOTE, can contain statements that are explicitly
> marked as normative, non-normative, or otherwise not marked at all;

I realise that a NOTE can contain normative statements and never said 
otherwise.  Bus, as I have already made clear, my rationale for why the 
document should only contain non-normative statements is independent of 
my rationale for why it should not be a Rec.

However, I will note that taking a document that doesn't contain any 
normative statements to Rec is not sensible or valuable because of the 
extra overhead and process requirements to get there.

Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 16:57:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:28 UTC