W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2007

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

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:39:19 +1000
Message-ID: <462CB707.8010205@lachy.id.au>
To: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
CC: www-html@w3.org

Tina Holmboe wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 03:40:05PM +1000, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> 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.
> Let's not mix the cards? The WHATWG proposal may, at some point in 
> the future, be adopted by the W3C's HTMLWG.

Your whole argument is based on a minor technicality, and that makes 
your point rather moot.

> At this point in time it has /not/, and there /are/ objections to it.

All of the objections are minor and none of the objectors have put forth 
a sensible alternative.  The majority of the participants have so far 
indicated support for the proposal to adopt the spec, even if they don't 
fully agree with everything in the spec as-is.  Even Chris Wilson, one 
of the co-chairs, responded relatively positively to the proposal.  His 
main concern seemed to be about having only a single editor, and that 
issue is being addressed.

> If browsers /now/ start implementing features from the WHATWG WA1 
> specification,

As the spec is being developed, it is vital that implementation feedback 
be received and taken into account by the editor.  That cannot happen if 
implementers refuse to participate, nor attempt to implement it. Without 
the support of implementers, the whole endeavor would be pointless from 
the start.

> then  yes. It /is/ about introducing a whole bunch of ad hoc, 
> proprietary extensions.

In the past, proprietary extensions were added as a way to compete with 
each other.  These days, the extensions are being developed in 
collaboration with each other and documented for benefit of everyone. 
Why does it matter whether they are documented in an official W3C draft 
or elsewhere?  The goal is the same.

>> I fail to see see the point you are trying to make.
> Very well: the WHATWG WA1 specification is not today, and MAY not be 
> tomorrow, the base for HTML5,

At this stage, it would seem rather naive to expect otherwise.

> certain that even if it IS ... it won't look significantly different.

Based on feedback from both implementers and other contributors, it is 
indeed very likely that some parts of the spec will be significantly 
altered between now and its completion.  Again, I fail to see the 
relevance of your point.

>>> - 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
> No, I meant HTML 4.1. Starting with the 4.01 specification would make 
> perfect sense; take out deprecated elements, clean it up, remove even 
> more presentational markup ...

Parts of HTML 4.01 that have actually been widely implemented have been 
adopted into HTML5, documented based on reality (even if reality differs 
from HTML4).  Other parts which have proven impossible to implement or 
seen very little use in reality have not.  I do not understand why it 
would be sensible to begin with a spec of such poor quality as the basis 
for work on the next version of HTML, particularly when a significantly 
better spec already exists.

> Then release it. After that we can see.

So what you're saying is, you have little to no interest in what a spec
says until it's been stamped as a W3C Working Draft?

>> HTML4 isn't anywhere near close to interoperable, or even fully 
>> implementable in the real world.
> That's something I would disagree with heavily

I'm interested to hear what evidence you have to dispute my claim.

>> 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.
> No. It doesn't matter if it has the support of a dozen. We should 
> very carefully avoid, once more, putting the cart before the horse.

That would depend on your definition of which is the horse and which is
the cart.

In a utopian society, you may like to think the spec should come first 
and then implementers should implement precisely what the spec says. 
Reality has, however, proven that it cannot work like that.  It is an 
iterative cycle where browsers attempt to implement a feature, specs 
document that feature and make improvements, browsers improve, the spec 
is updated based on feedback, and so on until the implementations and 
the spec agree.

>>> (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.
> I don't believe I mentioned a logotype?

My point was that basically the only difference between the specs at the 
WHATWG and at the W3C would essentially be the logo and a few other 
things in the header.  Everything from the TOC down will be identical, 
as they will be generated from the same source.  It would be insane to 
have 2 different specs.

> Yes, the specs SHOULD be judged on their quality, not their origin, 
> but:
> - The W3C /is/ the standardization organization, and

Yes, but you just agreed with me that the specs should not be judged by
their origin, and so I fail to see the relevance that has to this

> - The quality of the WA1 is in question as it is.

As it is a working draft, of course it isn't perfect.  But do you have
any significant issues with it that you would like to see addressed? 
Perhaps you should raise those issues on public-html or the whatwg 
mailing list.

> We /are/ in 2007. Up until now I've not said anything on this topic, 
> despite following it, but we /really/ do not need to start over with
> a HTML5 which, for instance, contain <i> with a revised purpose over
> what authors has used it for in the last decade.

There has been plenty of debate about whether or not to include <i> and
<b> in the spec, but I believe the pragmatic decision to include them
was because they are widely used and will continue to be, and there are
legitimate use cases for them.

> What I asked for was the link to the W3C WD document based on WA1. If 
> that does not exist, please avoid recommending WA1 to browser-makers.

You have not presented any arguments against the spec, except for the
fact that it isn't hosted at the W3C.  But even that argument is
contradictory with your agreement that the spec's origin is no basis for

Lachlan Hunt
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 13:40:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:21:02 UTC