- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 16:15:31 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
On 09/21/2014 01:31 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > >> I would like to add something about modularization we rarely think of, >> being spec authors: a collection of lightweight specs is better for >> Web authors than a single huge document. And I suppose implementors >> don't really care as soon as the specs are well written. > > For true modularization, that would be true. For division into parts, or > for base definition plus extensions, it’s rather the opposite. If there > is a single spec, let it be 1,000 or 2,000 pages, you can check any > single thing there and get the ultimate answer. You may need to follow > crossreferences and spend a few bottles of your favorite cola beverage > before you can be certain. But it’s still very different from going > through, say, all the CSS recommendations and drafts to find an answer > to a simple thing, possibly ending up with two or more different answers. I'll note that the existing HTML5 specification has a large number of normative references.[1] Many are essential for understanding what HTML is. Examples not only include CSS, ECMA262, HTTP but also ARIA, DOM and SVG. I don't know what the "right" size is for a specification; but I'm pretty sure it isn't the transitive closure of all of the normative references to the HTML5 specification. I, like Robin and others, suspect that the right value is somewhat smaller than the existing HTML5 specification. That being said, there indeed are trade-offs, which will limit how small one can reasonably go. - Sam Ruby [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/PR-html5-20140916/references.html#references
Received on Sunday, 21 September 2014 20:15:59 UTC