- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:22:38 +0200
- To: liam@w3.org
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org, ayg@aryeh.name, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Liam R E Quin, Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:16:33 -0400: > Yes, I agree. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't want to see > Recommendations on /TR using markup features that are defined only by > working drafts, just as we don't normally allow a normative reference > from a Recommendation to a Working Draft. > > Obviously if the HTML 5 spec uses HTML 5, by the time HTML 5 is a > Recommendation, the markup used by the HTML 5 spec will also be a > Recommendation :-) and there isn't a problem. Similarly for any spec > with a normative dependency on HTML 5. ... > the general principle of whether the markup language of a specification > is in itself in effect a dependency. So: feel free to use any markup, as long as the markup relies on a Recommendation under /TR. This includes that the document may refer to the markup that the document itself defines. FWIW, this makes perfectly sense to me. And this seems also to be the approach that was followed when HTML401 was published. After all, the HTML401 spec is published with a HTML401 transitional doctype. One problem: If a draft ends up as Note, then it should not be allowed to formally get Note status unless the Note's mark-up relies on a Recommendation under /TR. Thus: if it is a planned Recommendation for a new mark-up language that ends up as a Note, and if that document used the mark-up of the planned new mark-up language (or language version), then that note would have to change its mark-up in order to conform to something other than itself. As for Polyglot Markup - the spec: If it conforms to itself, to polyglot HTML5 markup, then it can only be published after HTML5 proper has become a Recommendaiton under /TR. Regarding the following excerpt ... > If it is not, then we should be allowed to edit pages on /TR, and in > that case if HTML 5 were to change, any specs written in HTML 5 could be > updated. > > I'd be equally happy with either approach, … snip … ... then I did not get what you meant. What is the other approach that you would be happy with? -- Leif H Silli
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 12:23:25 UTC