Re: HTML5 script start tag should select appropriate content model according to src

Tina Holmboe wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:22:43AM +0100, Spartanicus wrote:
> 
>>>>> Which "HTML5" specification does the above refer to?
>>>> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/
>>>  Unless I am very much mistaken, the URI you reference is not titled
>>>  "HTML 5" but rather "Web Applications 1.0"
>> HTML 5 is a monicker used to refer to WA1 + Web Forms 2.
> 
>   And quite imprecise. "HTML" is a markup language created and
>   maintained by the W3C, and version 5 is currently not
>   planned.

Ah, yes it is.  It has been planned and worked on since 2004 when the 
WHATWG began.  It's most likely that the WHATWG work will be adopted by 
the new HTMLWG and it will be called HTML5.

>> The WhatWG was formed by Apple, Mozilla and Opera because they were
>> dissatisfied with the way W3C wanted to develop the principle markup
>> language for the web. The rebel initiative gathered so much support that
> 
>   Indeed. However, that has no relevance to actual standardization
>   processes which Apple, Mozilla and Opera already /are/ a part of. We
>   have in the past gotten into trouble with ad-hoc additions to
>   browsers.

The WHATWG isn't just about introducing a whole bunch of new, ad hoc 
proprietary extensions.  It's about documenting and standardising real 
world HTML and developing new useful features, using an entirely open 
process - significantly more open than that of many other W3C working 
groups.

>> W3C was urged to consider embracing it. W3C restarted the HTML WG for
>> this purpose, see the "New HTML WG at W3C" post dd April 11th 2007 to
>> this list.
> 
>   Have you read the charter? I would like to refer you to the
>   following:
> 
>    "The mission of the HTML Working Group ... is to continue the
>     evolution of HTML"
> 
>   and
> 
>    "The HTML Working Group will actively pursue convergence
>     with WHATWG"

I fail to see see the point you are trying to make.

>   There is, so far and to my knowledge, no decision made as to
>   use the WHATWG WA1 as the base for a future, incremental,
>   revision of HTML

Although the decision isn't official yet, no other serious proposals 
have been put forth and the HTML WG Chairs, and most other responants, 
have so far responded fairly positively.

> - indeed 'HTML 4.1' might be a better goal for now, and well within 
> the charter.

Assuming you meant HTML 4.01, beginning with that spec instead of the 
WHATWG's work at this stage would be a huge waste of time and effort. 
HTML4 isn't anywhere near close to interoperable, or even fully 
implementable in the real world.

>   Therefore it is jumping the gun to suggest that browsers WILL
>   or SHOULD implement WA1.

No it's not.  The WHATWG has had the support of 3 major browser vendors 
since its inception and some features are already seeing implementations 
in those browser.  The sooner browsers start implementing it, the better.

>   Once the new WG has, with the assistance of the community
>   /at large/ and including work already done by the WHATWG, produced
>   a draft document, then reference implementations should be created.

There will not be any offical reference implementations produced, though 
there is already an implementation of an HTML5 parser available.

http://code.google.com/p/html5lib/

>  (If there DO exist a formal decision from the W3C on using the
>   WA1 draft document as basis for the new HTML revision, regardless
>   of which revision-number it will end up with, I would quite
>   appreciate a link to the appropriate WD on the W3C site.)

What difference does the W3C logo make to the quality of the spec? 
Specs should be judged on their quality, not their point of origin.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 05:40:16 UTC