- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 10:26:14 -0800
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
I agreed with almost everything you said, Henry, except for the end about not requiring implementation to progressing to rec. > ... The > Polyglot spec. [3] is an attempt at a statement of fact: _if_ you > produces what it defines as *polyglot markup*, _then_ the result will > > a) be conformant HTML5 per HTML5 [1a]; > b) be well-formed XML per XML 1.0 [2]; > c) be conformant XHTML5 per HTML5 [1b]; > c) produce nearly-identical DOMs when processed as XML or HTML per > HTML5. These are all testable requirements. An "implementation" might be a tool that produces polyglot documents, and interoperability demonstrated by showing that the results of a polyglot producer pass various conformance tests. > REC-track requires Working Group consensus, in this case that the > definition is accurate, provides for wide review and implies an > ongoing obligation of maintenance. Note that for _definitional_ > specifications such as this one progressing to REC does _not_ require > implementation, since it is only referring specifications/documents > which may include implementable conformance requirements involving > the definition(s) provided. (disagree)
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2012 18:27:39 UTC