Re: Courtesy notification: call for consensus on HTML normative language reference issues

The TAG discussed [1] on it's teleconference of 7 January 2010 your 
proposed plans for producing an HTML 5 language reference.  I have been 
asked to convey to you that the path you've adopted seems promising, and 
we encourage you to proceed.  We hope you'll understand that our 
satisfaction with the HTML language reference plans can't be fully 
established until we see the resulting working drafts and until the HTML 
WG's plans for publishing and maintaining them are clearer.  So, we hope 
it will be acceptable if we should decide to raise additional concerns 
later.  In the meantime, we thank you for your careful attention to our 

Noah Mendelsohn
for the W3C Technical Architecture Group


Tracker: this should fulfill my TAG ACTION-373

Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Maciej Stachowiak <>
01/04/2010 01:42 AM
        To:     Maciej Stachowiak <>
        cc:, "Michael(tm) Smith" 
<>, Paul Cotton <>, Philippe Le 
Hegaret <>, Sam Ruby <>, " 
WG" <>
        Subject:        Re: Courtesy notification: call for consensus on 
HTML normative language  reference issues

On Jan 3, 2010, at 9:36 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

Thanks for clarifying the position of the TAG. I think if Mike appends the 
collected RelaxNG to his draft, changes its status to non-normative, and 
requests FPWD publication, then it is highly likely to be published as a 
First Public Working Draft. The next action here is on Mike, so I hesitate 
to make a firm commitment without asking him, but as co-chair I would 
strongly encourage him to take these steps ASAP. Note: technically we will 
give Working Group members an opportunity to object, and it is possible 
that some may, but a Working Draft does not require consensus so I do not 
expect this to be an obstacle.

I discussed this with Mike. He believes he can have the document ready for 
FPWD by January, 28. We are tracking this as <>.

Mike also mentions that he's not sure if including a full schema is the 
right thing to do, since none of the available schema languages is 
expressive enough to represent all of the HTML5 document conformance 
requirements. I know other members of the Working Group share this 
concern. Mike and I decided that the best way to handle this is to use the 
usual bug/issue process. Thus I have filed <>.

TAG members are encouraged to Cc themselves on the bug and/or add comments 
if they have an interest in this issue. After suitable discussion in the 
HTML WG, Mike will enter an Editor's Response in the bug, and if necessary 
we will escalate it to an issue. Though hopefully we can settle it with 
minimum fuss.


Received on Friday, 8 January 2010 20:34:55 UTC