W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:41:17 -0400
Message-ID: <4E3C2B3D.1060201@mozilla.com>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
CC: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
On 8/5/11 11:52 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 17:18 +0200, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>> Again, what are the reasons to link to the WHATWG HTML version?
>> If there is something you need that is not in the W3C spec, then it seems like a valid reason (e.g., PeerConnection API or some helpful concept).
> Agreed, but no one has come up with such need so far.

I refer to the HTML WG's work as normative, but in the File API's 
Editor's Draft [0], I'd also like to link to the WHATWG document as an 
informative reference for the Stream API [1]  and LocalMediaStream [2].  
This is a pragmatic, and not a political, cross-referencing.

Stream API reuses blob: URIs; LocalMediaStream defines globally unique 
identifiers in a way that I find useful for the opaqueString 
production.  I'm tidying up normative and informative links, and in 
general, I think the time is ripe for a good discussion of affiliated 
specifications.  Another area for coordination that I'd encourage is 
between W3C and Khronos, if it isn't happening already.  For instance, 
File API makes use of ArrayBuffer [3] *normatively* which is defined at 
Khronos [3] and which is implemented in some user agents.  Is there a 
formal liaison?  This will benefit WebGL as well.

Some of these affiliated technologies are not under strictly under the 
aegis of W3C, and I think that is perfectly fine.

>>> What
>>> does it mean for the work of the HTML Working Group?
>> Egos aside, it should not mean anything… one has green headings, the other has blue ones.
> In the ideal world, it should not, but the fact that we're having this
> exact discussion indicates there is meaning behind. For example, Ian
> pointed out earlier that "The W3C one has a growing list of intentional
> errors.".

I'd like an ideal world as well, but I am optimistic that 
implementations will clarify discrepancies.  The ability to refer across 
specifications keeps them current with implementations.

-- A*

[0] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/
[2] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#localmediastream
[3] http://www.khronos.org/registry/typedarray/specs/latest/
Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 17:41:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:23 UTC