21045 2013-02-19 12:48:56 +0000 W3C HTML 5.1 Nightly and WHATWG HTML should sync each other as much as possible 2014-01-15 13:11:56 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG HTML5 spec unspecified All All RESOLVED WORKSFORME https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=842376 P2 normal --- 21046 24297 24298 1 VYV03354 robin ehsan eoconnor hsivonen mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking silviapfeiffer1 public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 83317 0 VYV03354 2013-02-19 12:48:56 +0000 I was totally confused by HTMLImageElement's named constructor. If both spec editors won't work together, which spec do we have to follow? (Of course you will say "The W3C's one." :) It would be the nightmare if implementers have to watch both specs and determine which description is newer. 83360 1 silviapfeiffer1 2013-02-20 00:37:10 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html Status: Rejected Change Description: none Rationale: There are always a few commits on the WHATWG spec that haven't been cherry-picked on the HTML5.1 spec yet, but there's at most a delay of a week or two. I think you might find that both specs agree on this IDL for HTMLImageElement right now. http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/single-page.html#the-img-element http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-img-element As for advice on which spec to watch: that really depends on where the work around a specific feature is happening at that time. 83361 2 eoconnor 2013-02-20 00:52:03 +0000 I changed the resolution from INVALID to WORKSFORME, since the editorial team is actively trying to keep things in sync as much as possible. 83365 3 silviapfeiffer1 2013-02-20 01:50:24 +0000 Fair enough. I reacted to the differences between the IDLs, which did not exist. :-) 83366 4 silviapfeiffer1 2013-02-20 02:39:17 +0000 Just to be complete: the HTML5.1 spec constructor also agrees: http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/embedded-content-0.html#the-img-element 83377 5 VYV03354 2013-02-20 11:07:09 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) > Just to be complete: the HTML5.1 spec constructor also agrees: > http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/embedded-content-0.html#the-img-element Please see http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content-0.html#the-img-element and https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20554 The named constructor definition is [NamedConstructor=Image(optional unsigned long width, optional unsigned long height)] there which disagrees your URL. Where is the latest spec? This is the very example of the confusion. 83380 6 VYV03354 2013-02-20 11:26:37 +0000 When I open <http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/>, I saw the following message: > This is a work in progress! For the latest updates from the HTML WG, possibly including important bug fixes, please look at the editor's draft instead. I said WHATWG spec should sync with HTML 5.1 *Nightly* (formerly Editor's draft) in the summary. 83934 7 silviapfeiffer1 2013-03-04 12:26:28 +0000 Not sure why this was changed, but assigning this to Robin, who applied the patch in https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/90bc0983729a9c351f8d6cc5632b6429920b6c0d I believe this merge may have been done by mistake, because editorial_fixes should be merged into CR HTML5.0, but not into master (i.e. HTML5.1). Robin to clarify? 84246 8 robin 2013-03-11 16:24:36 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Accepted Change Description: none Rationale: The specifications are actively being aligned, and are in sync on the vast majority of the content. If however you expect them to be in sync at any given time, well, the only way that can happen is if they were the same document — and that isn't the case. The specific difference you cite is both small and recent. It is unreasonable to expect it to be synced immediately. Note that it is purely editorial (and was included deliberately) and makes no difference to script. It's just a simpler expression of the same thing that does not introduce any interoperability issues. To summarise: we're aware that sync is needed, and we're working on it. I don't believe that having a bug open on the topic helps. 84276 9 silviapfeiffer1 2013-03-12 00:31:27 +0000 Robin, sorry to be a pain, but the specific issue that was pointed out still needs addressing. I am curious why we changed the constructor instead of going with the WHATWG spec's. Was there a bug about it? Is this something we should also ask the WHATWG to adopt? 84278 10 ehsan 2013-03-12 01:13:09 +0000 (In reply to comment #9) > Robin, sorry to be a pain, but the specific issue that was pointed out still > needs addressing. I am curious why we changed the constructor instead of > going with the WHATWG spec's. Was there a bug about it? Is this something we > should also ask the WHATWG to adopt? I filed bug 20554 in the wrong component (I meant to file it in the WHATWG component.) Bug 21044 is on file to fix this in the WHATWG spec as well, but it has not been fixed yet. 84279 11 silviapfeiffer1 2013-03-12 01:53:48 +0000 OK, thanks, that works for me.