- From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:50:20 -0800
- To: fielding@gbiv.com
- Cc: annevk@opera.com, public-html@w3.org
What's more, two implementors who did that would almost certainly come up with different answers. I think this thread is closely related to the question Henry Thompson asked at the Tech Plenary which was: "HTML5 says how all the incorrect cases are handled, but fails to tell authors at the end of the day what the correct way of doing things is" In my view, we will discover that failure to do that will leave us with a language that makes it impossible to write anything "correctly" since no one agrees on what is correct. Roy T. Fielding writes: > > On Nov 29, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:15:20 +0100, Roy T. Fielding > > <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 29, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > >>> The DOM and other features you mention are part of our charter > >>> deliverables, so it would not make sense to remove them from the > >>> spec. > >> > >> Not all deliverables need to be in a single spec. What does need to > >> be in the spec is a definition of HTML that does not require a DOM, > >> because MOST implementations of HTML processing do not have a DOM. > > > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/section- > > conformance.html#conformance covers those implementations already. > > Only if you think it is reasonable for such an implementor to filter > through the irrelevant content and reverse engineer a data definition > from the normative DOM description. I don't. > > ....Roy > -- Best Regards, --raman Title: Research Scientist Email: raman@google.com WWW: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/ Google: tv+raman GTalk: raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com PGP: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 01:50:55 UTC