HTML WG straw poll on conformance terminology when extensions are used

Some time ago I raised what became HTML WG bug 9178 [1]. This was done 
representing myself, not the TAG.

The concern I raised related to the conformance terminology in the HTML5 
drafts. The status quo is that a document is considered to be a "conforming 
document" even if such conformance depends on the use of "applicable 
specifications" to extend the HTML5 language, or even possibly to change 
the syntax or interpretation of HTML5 existing HTML5 markup.

My bug report proposed to change that so that the unadorned term 
"conforming document" would apply only to documents that conform to the 
unextended specification; I proposed that the extension specifications 
(I.e. the "applicable specifications") themselves should establish 
conformance terminology for the changes they introduce, with a common 
convention established along the lines of ("conforms to HTML5 as augmented 
by the XXXX and YYY specification", e.g. "conforms to HTML5 as augmented by 
the social markup extension specifications"), etc.

For the record, I have been pleased with the level of consideration given 
by the HTML WG, and I see from the attached note that the HTML WG, having 
failed to reach easy consensus, has opened an "objection" poll for their 
ISSUE 140, soliciting objections to making the proposed change.

I pass this on in case it is of interest to the TAG; I am not specifically 
asking that the TAG as a whole, or that individual TAG members who are on 
the HTML WG, do anything at this time (I presume that my personal 
preference regarding the poll is clear). If TAG members do feel this needs 
TAG attention, then please let me know and I will schedule discussion. 
Thank you.



From: [] On 
Behalf Of Paul Cotton
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 10:42 PM
Subject: ISSUE-140: conformance-terminology - Straw Poll for Objections

ISSUE-140: conformance-terminology - Straw Poll for Objections

The poll is available here and it will run through Thursday March 17:

Please read the introductory text before entering your response.

In particular, keep in mind that you don't *have* to reply. You only need 
to do so if you feel your objection to one of the options is truly strong, 
and has not been adequately addressed by a clearly marked objection 
contained within a Change Proposal or by someone else's objection. The 
Chairs will be looking at strength of objections, and will not be counting 


Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 15:21:08 UTC