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

On 20.9.2012 15:44, Sam Ruby wrote:

>> Who and how decides which extensions have wide consensus and are enabled
>> by default in W3C Validator?
> 
> We could make that more formal, but to date that has largely been left
> up to Mike Smith to decide.  The W3C Validator support for HTML5 (and
> extensions) is marked experimental and given that we are encouraging
> experimentation, I don't think that there will be a problem.

OK

>> Thanks for clarification,
> 
> I'll stop short of per-committing Mike.  Given that you have experience
> with the validator, I encourage you to write necessary schema for the
> extensions you propose.  If you can't reach agreement with Mike, please
> bring that specific disagreement back here.

Actually I wasn't worried about schema I'm developing for ITS 2.0
(http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/) and its support in validator.

I have more general concern. I think it would be useful to have some
general rules covering this earlier then later. For example some people
are upset by what the plan is proposing for longdesc. If they will make
all efforts to create separate extension spec and there will not be
clear rules when this gets into validator they might end up in very
unfair situation.

But might be I'm too forward thinkg. If others doesn't feel need for
some policy about support of extension specs in the validator we can
leave it as it is.

    Jirka

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  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
------------------------------------------------------------------