Hi Steve,
you are trying to keep it technical by picking one example. But I guess
you are missing a point, this is not technical issue here,
this is not about choosing, this is about market.
I do understand, that HTML is more than a set of tags and rules to use
them, there are a lot of different issues here involved (conformance,
nonconformance, legacy content, error fixing, parsing, accessibility.
etc.), but again, this is not technical issue, it's marketing, and
frankly I think this is exactly what you are missing.
Let's assume, the browser is the most important device to consume HTML
(I do not know about search engines crawlers, due to their speed, number
and reach, they may be dominant, but they usually go for different
thinks then validity, conformity, accessibility and most likely even
semantics in general). I do not have any numbers/research to support
that, but it's not unreasonable to assume this.
Let's say we have 2 specs.: spec A and spec. B, Let's say, that majority
of browsers (vendors) pick specification A.
1/ web developers will look into A for guidance, because of the browser
support of HTML and HTML related technologies (it's one package
developers are working with - HTML, CSS, JS)
2/ web developers will not use validators checking against B (because of
1/, why would they?)
3/ most validators will use A as a frame to check against
4/ due to our assumption, due to 1/, if crawlers will look for any
validity specific issues, they will use specification A
5/ due to our assumption, due to 1/, assistant devices (e.g. readers for
blind) will use specification A
6/ specification B becomes marginal
7/ because all of this, any other future device consuming HTML (even
browser, browser versions) will choose spec. A
And that won't change until browser switch from spec. A to other
This is not about "just pick one of those specifications", no vendor of
any device/sw, who does want to become a player in this field of any
significance will go with the flow.
Due to Hixie's intervention here (this is technical forum), if you
wishes to discuss this issue further, why do I think that living
standard approach is better than specification circle (the technical
differences are minor issues here). You can write me directly.
Brona
On 26.7.2012 13:38, Steve Faulkner wrote:
Hi Bronslav
- keeping to the technical as per hixi'e request
you wrote:
" both derives their
authority from browser vendors - "specification" not supported by
majority of browsers is irrelevant, developers can only work with what
is in the browser (plugins are becoming obsolete, as it would seems).
The only thing, that matters is what is in browsers."
Not exactly true, the semantics of HTML and the rules on how
implemented (or yet to be implemented) features are to be used within
the constraints of their implementation is not down to the browser
vendors, the rules on how HTML is to be used has an important effect
upon the accessibility of authored content.
Also there are there are other classes of software such as conformance
checkers for which HTML/HTML5 provide normative requirements and
advice.
And as it happens this is one of the areas where the 2 specs diverge:
In the HTML5 spec [5] there are currently only 2 cases (soon there may
only be 1 [1]) where lack of alt on an attribute is considered
conforming:
"A conformance checker must report the lack of an alt attribute as an
error unless one of the conditions listed below applies:
•The img element is in a figure element that satisfies the conditions
described above.
•The document has a meta element with a name attribute whose value is
an ASCII case-insensitive match for the string "generator". (This case
does not represent a case where the document is conforming, only that
the generator could not determine appropriate alternative text —
validators are required to not show an error in this case to
discourage markup generators from including bogus alternative text
purely in an attempt to silence validators.)"
While in HTML living standard there are 3 [2] the one missing from HTML5 is
"The title attribute is present and has a non-empty value"
The reasons why the HTML5 specification does not have the same
requirement as HTML the living standard is well documented [3]
So conformance checkers have to make a decision about which set of
rules to implement. I would strongly suggest that one of the major
validation tools [4] will implement the rules in the W3C HTML spec,
not HTML living standard.
[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Issue31cMetaGeneratorUpdated
[2]
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage//embedded-content-1.html#guidance-for-conformance-checkers
[3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitlev2
[4] http://validator.w3.org/
[5]
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-img-element.html#guidance-for-conformance-checkers
On 25.7.2012 16:55, Steve Faulkner wrote:
hi Bronislav
you wrote:
I was just looking at WHATWG wiki and there is nice sentence: "In
general the WHATWG will ensure that the normative content of the
specifications (the requirements on authors and implementors) remains
the same so long as the W3C group doesn't demonstrate any serious lapses
in judgement."
I am sure the same can be said from the other viewpoint,
The W3C HTML working group will ensure that the normative content of the
specifications (the requirements on authors and implementors) remains
the same so long as the WHATWG group doesn't demonstrate any serious lapses
in judgement.
Which is why the 2 specs have diverged on author conformance
requirements and advice as each group considers the other to have made
lapses in judgement.
Hi Steve,
True, no doubt about that, but that is matter of relevancy of opinion.
Mine and yours are irrelevant. W3C and WHATWG as organizations are
irrelevant - neither actually have any authority, both derives their
authority from browser vendors - "specification" not supported by
majority of browsers is irrelevant, developers can only work with what
is in the browser (plugins are becoming obsolete, as it would seems).
The only thing, that maters is what is in browsers.
Bronislav Klucka
--
with regards
Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG
www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
