Re: [whatwg] [WF2] Conformance Requirements Issues
Ian Hickson wrote: But there are parts of HTML4 that will never be supported by mainstream browsers Then they won't be compliant to HTML4, or specs that extend HTML4 (like WF2). Then why write a spec that no browser will ever be able to be fully compliant with due to backwards compatibiltiy constraints? This will be addressed in Web Apps 1 / HTML5. Ok. > Perhaps this bit from section 2.2 Existing Controls, can be moved or copied up to the conformance requirements. | Compliant UAs must follow all the guidelines given in the HTML4 | specification *except those modified by this specification*. Fair point. Done. I also made it (as you suggested, I think) only the forms-related parts. Yes, that looks good. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Re: [whatwg] [WF2] Conformance Requirements Issues
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > > > In the future they can conform to WF2 by implementing the bits of > > HTML4, WF2, etc, that they don't support. > > But there are parts of HTML4 that will never be supported by mainstream > browsers Then they won't be compliant to HTML4, or specs that extend HTML4 (like WF2). This will be addressed in Web Apps 1 / HTML5. > though most of those do relate to SGML processing, and there are bits > that WF2 changes (such as handling as some weird bugwards > compatible CDATA/PCDATA combination for error handling). Perhaps this > bit from section 2.2 Existing Controls, can be moved or copied up to the > conformance requirements. > > | Compliant UAs must follow all the guidelines given in the HTML4 > | specification *except those modified by this specification*. > > I couldn't find anything with similar meaning to that in the conformance > section, but it is a conformance requirment and, as such, should > probably be included there. Fair point. Done. I also made it (as you suggested, I think) only the forms-related parts. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] [WF2] Conformance Requirements Issues
Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote: In the conformance requirements for Web Forms 2 [1], it states: | This specification includes by reference the form-related parts of the | HTML4, ... Compliant UAs must implement all the requirements of those | specifications to claim compliance with this one. ...does this not make it impossible for any existing browsers to ever conform to WF2? Existing browsers can't conform to WF2 because they don't implement WF2. Sorry for not being clearer, I think you misunderstood what I meant. I didn't mean existing browsers as in the currently available versions, I meant the known browsers after they have been extended with these new features, as opposed to some future browsers that don't even exist yet. In the future they can conform to WF2 by implementing the bits of HTML4, WF2, etc, that they don't support. But there are parts of HTML4 that will never be supported by mainstream browsers, though most of those do relate to SGML processing, and there are bits that WF2 changes (such as handling as some weird bugwards compatible CDATA/PCDATA combination for error handling). Perhaps this bit from section 2.2 Existing Controls, can be moved or copied up to the conformance requirements. | Compliant UAs must follow all the guidelines given in the HTML4 | specification *except those modified by this specification*. I couldn't find anything with similar meaning to that in the conformance section, but it is a conformance requirment and, as such, should probably be included there. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Re: [whatwg] [WF2] Conformance Requirements Issues
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > In the conformance requirements for Web Forms 2 [1], it states: > > | This specification includes by reference the form-related parts of the > | HTML4, ... Compliant UAs must implement all the requirements of those > | specifications to claim compliance with this one. > > Because it says "must implement *all* the requirements of those > specifications" (rather than just all the form-related requirements) and > since there are no strictly conforming HTML 4 implementations in > existence, does this not make it impossible for any existing browsers to > ever conform to WF2? Existing browsers can't conform to WF2 because they don't implement WF2. In the future they can conform to WF2 by implementing the bits of HTML4, WF2, etc, that they don't support. > At the end of that section, it also states in the note: > | Note: Documents that use the new features described in this > | specification cannot be strictly conforming XHTML or HTML4 documents, > | since they contain features not defined in those specifications. > > Shouldn't that say XHTML 1.0 or 1.1? Fair point. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
[whatwg] [WF2] Conformance Requirements Issues
Hi, In the conformance requirements for Web Forms 2 [1], it states: | This specification includes by reference the form-related parts of the | HTML4, ... Compliant UAs must implement all the requirements of those | specifications to claim compliance with this one. Because it says "must implement *all* the requirements of those specifications" (rather than just all the form-related requirements) and since there are no strictly conforming HTML 4 implementations in existence, does this not make it impossible for any existing browsers to ever conform to WF2? At the end of that section, it also states in the note: | Note: Documents that use the new features described in this | specification cannot be strictly conforming XHTML or HTML4 documents, | since they contain features not defined in those specifications. Shouldn't that say XHTML 1.0 or 1.1? [1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/2005-04-11-call-for-comments/#conformance -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
