[whatwg] some issues
ian at hixie.ch
Wed Jul 7 05:44:49 PDT 2004
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, [iso-8859-1] C Williams wrote:
> you'll notice that I was referring to Web Forms 2.0 over-ruling of the
> W3C's assertion that XHTML documents MUST have a doctype.
> If it isn't html or xhtml, it can hardly pretend to advertise
> itself as such, can it?
As you point out, a WF2 document is not XHTML. Therefore the assertion in
WF2 can't be overrulling anything in XHTML, since XHTML can't be applying
any more, since the document isn't XHTML. The assertion is a new
assertion, for WF2 documents.
So this seems fine to me...
> Imagine *another* browser vendor wanting to implement your spec.
If a browser vendor wants to implement the WHATWG spec(s), I encourage
them to either post to this list, or, if their work is confidential,
e-mail me directly (anonymously if required), and the WHATWG members will
make sure their requirements and time-constraints are taken into account
as far as possible.
Implementors are actually the main reason that there are three specs and
not one. Implementors want to start coding the stable stuff (in order to
get experimental implementations and implementation experience to aid the
subsequent standardisation process) before the other stuff has been
finished. Having different specs go through different stages of
development is the best way to do this, as far as I can tell.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg