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 dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform