Le 25/07/2012 13:45, Bronislav Klučka a écrit :
On 20.7.2012 14:38, Steve Faulkner wrote:
Hi Hixie,
I believe you have made some spurious claims, one of them being;
"The WHATWG effort is focused on developing the
canonical description of HTML and related technologies"
................
The claim that HTML the living standard is canonical appears to imply
that
the requirements and advice contained within HTML the living standard is
more correct than what is in the HTML5 specification
................
In respect to those author related requirements mentioned above the
HTML5
specification can currently claim to be contain a more accurate set of
requirements and advice, that takes into account current implementation
realities, thus providing author with more practical advice and thus end
users with a better experience.
Canonical means neither "correct" nor "accurate", those words have no
meaning in this case, you cannot apply them on set of rules (you first
have to have set of rules, to claim, whether something is accurate or
correct within the boundaries of those rules), canonical means, that
those set of rules are valid, that those rules apply.
The question is, who will follow those set of rules. Both HTML5 and
HTML TLS can claim to be canonical, both can be valid for different
groups.
Who are those different groups? As far as I know, the major producer of
HTML content is a group usually refered as "web developers".
I have a genuine question which is: does what any other group think
about HTML matters?
Let's just hope all major vendors will chose the same...
This statement seems very upside down to me. Some people thinks
standards follow this path:
1) a spec is written
2) some folks (browser vendors) implement it
3) some other folks (web devs) build on top of that.
I don't know how to say that, but this model is plain wrong. Maybe it
works in some industry. Maybe it works for some languages, but it's not
the case for web technologies (HTML included).
Reality is that implementors implement and for the most part, the spec
codifies *afterwards* what has been implemented. The biggest part of
HTML5 has been exactly that. And sometimes between the first
implementation and the standard, other implement the same thing.
Sometimes with bug, sometimes they get the initial implementors to fix a
bug before copying it, sometimes no one care about what has been
implemented and it's removed.
In the end, all majors vendors will keep doing what they have always
been doing and for most part, since they all have the constraint to
properly render at least what others render properly, there will be at
worst a de facto standard if the standard either doesn't cover this case
or is not properly describing what is actually implemented.
Who writes the spec, what is in the spec is at no point the most
important piece of the puzzle, because if no one follows the spec, it's
just a useless piece of document.
My good news for you is the following: all relevant specs will codify
what all major vendors choose to do.
David
