- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:08:11 -0400
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Ennals, Robert" <robert.ennals@intel.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/19/2010 04:00 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Mar 19, 2010, at 5:34 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> [co-chair hat off] >> >> I don't believe that this proposal should be used by browsers to add >> experimental features. >> >> Nor do I believe that this proposal should change parsing rules; >> furthermore XML Namespaces are published in a separate document from >> the XML specification, I see no reason why this proposal needs to be >> in the HTML5 specification at all; but both are tangents, More here: >> >> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/04/08/HTML-Reunification >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0180.html >> >> Net: I believe that Author Conformance Requirements are the real issue >> here, and until there is a coherent rationale for which conformance >> requirements are included and which are not, we will asymptotically >> approach a state where all implementation issues are resolved and what >> remains is a document conformance issues: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0314.html > > For what it's worth, I don't think everyone agrees that ISSUE-41 is > solely or primarily about authoring conformance. [co-chair hat on] For what it's worth, I didn't assert that everybody agrees that ISSUE-41 is solely or primarily about authoring conformance. > It seems to me we need > to strive to be very clear about the target use cases for any given > proposal, since different WG participants have very different > perspectives on the nature of this issue. > >> I'm awaiting for rationale to be provided using the only mechanism >> available to request such: >> >> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7034 >> >> If there is a coherent rationale provided that I can then use as a >> basis for filing individual bug reports on, I'll do that. If not, I'll >> escalate the issue and volunteer to write a change proposal which >> revisits this from the top down. >> >> My recommendation (which nobody needs to follow) is that the third >> proposal not be pursued at this time, and that depending on the >> outcome of issue 41 and bug 7034, a proposal may be made later to >> address authoring extensions, and that such a proposal is likely to >> take the form of a separate document. > > I don't think this proposal is significantly different from Rob's > "Proposal X" in its effects on authoring conformance. I believe the only > material difference is whether the prefix registry affects parsing. I > believe that in both proposals, it affects document conformance in > essentially the same way. > > That being said, anyone is always free to propose additional documents. [co-chair hat off] If all authoring conformance requirements are removed, and there is no change to parsing behavior, there is no need to propose additional documents. Depending on the outcome of the authoring conformance requirements discussion, I am simply requesting the opportunity to make proposals that might be relevant to ISSUE-41 based on the outcome of that discussion. > Regards, > Maciej - Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 19 March 2010 20:08:43 UTC