Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion An alternate take on HTML5
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Benjamin Smedberg  
View profile  
 More options Feb 18 2009, 3:59 pm
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.platform
From: Benjamin Smedberg <benja...@smedbergs.us>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:59:21 -0500
Local: Wed, Feb 18 2009 3:59 pm
Subject: Re: An alternate take on HTML5
On 2/18/09 12:13 PM, rubys wrote:

> The current W3C plan (<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/>) is: 2009-06 HTML5
> Candidate Recommendation

> I don't believe that achieving that milestone with all of the features
> in Ian's draft is achievable.

I am concerned that the milestone dates given are unrealistic for any
specification that has relatively complete test suites. From what I've seen,
there are currently very few tests other than some parser tests associated
with hsivonen's references implementation.

Overall, I think it's better to have no new specification than a
specification without significant test coverage.

It's important to get the parsing and DOM specification complete enough that
it can specify correct and useful behavior for elements and attributes which
aren't currently specified. Thus, if <video> or <canvas> or <whatever> is
not included in the spec, the spec should at least be very specific about
the parsing of those unknown elements and the DOM tree that is constructed,
so that future specifications don't have to break the current specification.

Without a diff of sayrer's doc versus the large HTML5 spec, it's hard to
give detailed feedback, but I tend to agree that it's possible and prudent
to produce a specification in stages, by rolling out certain sections such
as parsing and error handling, and then dealing with new features as the
specification of those features matures and tests become available.

--BDS


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.