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

Re: Clarification of "Extensibility" section (Was: Re: Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014)

From: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:11:40 +0200
Message-ID: <505B160C.6060507@kosek.cz>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> (janina@rednote.net)" <janina@rednote.net>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> (jbrewer@w3.org)" <jbrewer@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
On 20.9.2012 14:52, Sam Ruby wrote:

> I encourage you to create one or more bug reports on section 2.2.3 of
> the HTML5 specification.  For best results, make concrete suggestions on
> what you would like to see changed.

Sure, I will do that.

But I'm more concerned with the proposed plan now. In section about
"extension specification" it says:

"... Many extensions recognized as having wide consensus are recognized
as part of the default settings of the W3C Validator, so they have an
equal footing in validation..."

Who and how decides which extensions have wide consensus and are enabled
by default in W3C Validator?

Thanks for clarification,


  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 13:12:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:27 UTC