- From: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-what@farside.org.uk>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:15:17 +0100
Ian Hickson writes: >> The problem with any FPI that we come up with is that vendors may >> not implement all specifications [...] > What _vendors_ implement is irrelevant here. (e.g. nobody has fully > implemented HTML4, but that doesn't stop us using that FPI.) Right. However, I thought that the intention here was that Web Forms 2, Web Applications 1, and Web Controls 1 would be developed separately, precisely because a) they're orthogonal to some extent (more so between WC1 and the rest), and b) because smaller, more focussed, specifications are more likely to be implemented completely and correctly than a single monolithic specification (*cough* SVG *cough*). Given that the specifications *are* being developed (and ratified?) independantly, it's reasonable that we'd see documents developed using only one of the WHATWG specifications, so I don't see that a single FPI would work here. Indeed, you've already pointed out the possibility of having identifiably-separate versioned FPIs. I don't think it's unreasonable that WA1 might require WF2, and that WC1 might require WA1, and so I don't think that we'd need all combinations. However, if we're going to submit these as individual extensions to HTML, with some time occurring between each one, rather than produce a single monolithic HTML5 spec and DTD, I think we need to allow people to specify which 'version' of HTML they're using. Regards, Malcolm
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 06:15:17 UTC