On Friday 2014-09-19 17:23 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the > stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation): > > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ > HTML5 > > There's a call for review to W3C member companies (of which Mozilla > is one) open until October 14.
Here is my current draft of the comments I plan to submit in about 12
hours (cc:ing the whole AC, I think). Sorry for not getting this out
for people to have a look at sooner.
-David
Regarding the HTML5 specification, my organization:
(X) suggests changes, but supports publication as a W3C Recommendation
whether or not the changes are adopted (your details below).
Comments:
General comments:
We support publication as a Recommendation although there are surely
many details in the specification that are wrong, either because the
specification disagrees with itself or because it disagrees with what is
needed to make an implementation that can suceed in the market. The
level of coverage in the test suite is not enough to avoid that. These
errors will be found over time.
The harm these errors cause will be determined by how the W3C community
handles the HTML specification in the future:
* Statements in the specification that are inconsistent or incompatible
with what Web content requires should keep being fixed in the future,
just as they have been while developing HTML5 up to this point. That
those statements are part of a W3C Recommendation should not increase
the burden of proof.
* Development of tests that test this specification should continue.
Being declared "interoperable enough" for Recommendation should not
stop future increase in interoperability. And this development of
tests should focus on the latest specification, not on the
Recommendation snapshot.
To put this another way: while we support the publication of this
specification as a W3C Recommendation, we do not likewise support the
promotion of W3C Recommendation status as a major milestone. The
process of continuous improvement, which should continue, is far more
important than the snapshot.
Specific actionable change proposals:
(1) We would like to see the reference for the URL specification point
to the CG snapshot, as proposed in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2014Sep/0061.html
(2) While it would be helpful to have the recommendation contain
pointers to current and future work (e.g., have a more useful
"Latest Editor's Draft" link that's likely to point to the editor's
draft for future HTML specification development), and a useful
explanation in the status section of the differences between the
recommendation and the editor's draft.
Usage:
[X] produces products addressed by this specification
[X] expects to produce products conforming to this specification
[X] expects to produce content conforming to this specification
[X] expects to use products conforming to this specification
When the W3C's and WHATWG's HTML specifications differ, we tend to
follow the WHATWG one.
Other comments:
--
𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂
𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
- Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
