[whatwg] some issues
mattraymond at earthlink.net
Sat Jul 10 15:30:25 PDT 2004
Jim Ley wrote:
> Matthew Raymond wrote:
>> Who's to say it wasn't a consensus between the WHAT WG
>>already stated that WHAT WG materials don't have to be the
>>result of a consensus between contributers.
> No, but it's key to the WHAT WG that it is an open process, so however
> it's done, it would be done in public (so at the very least there'd be
> a post on the list.)
Let's look at the charter again:
"Specifications will be developed in public, with the latest version
always publicly available."
"The working group members should also respond to queries from the
public on this mailing list."
So if anyone has any question about anything added, changed or
deleted from the draft (which is always the latest one available), they
can simply ask on the mailing list and WHAT WG has to answer them. So
the only thing not made public is the thought processes of WHAT WG
members, and only in situation where the WHAT WG is not specifically
asked about their reasoning.
So really, what the public doesn't know is what the public doesn't
care enough to ask about. Does that make the process non-open? Perhaps
in the strictest sense, but then why should we care?
>>>>>I read that as saying that no XML profile
>> Ian has already stated that he doesn't believe in those profiles.
> What? He's doing an XML profile - it's called XHTML. You seem to be
> misunderstanding what I mean by profile in this context.
My understanding of how W3C uses the term profile (which is
relevant, since W3C has the only XHTML specs I am familiar with) is that
profile refers to a definition of how a standard should be used in a
specific case or under specific conditions.
By contrast, Web Forms 2.0 describes an XHTML module for use by XML
documents that use the XHTML namespace.
> WebForms 2.0 has 2 profiles, one in SGML (well not really, one in a
> non-SGML way without the SGML, or indeed any SGML rules) and one in
It was my understanding that for XHTML, he is creating a new XHTML
Module called XHTML5B. I don't know enough about SGML to make a comment
>>B) Dean Edwards has an XML styling method that
>>allows XHTML documents to display on IE using
>>the correct MIME type.
> And I have a method that allows simply by a registry tweak, but I
> don't see that really makes any difference to the point in hand.
XSLT can be used to transform documents without altering the user's
Registry, and the user doesn't even have to know about it. All they see
is a web page. Therefore, using that method, a document can be submitted
by a MIME type the WF2 draft considers valid and it will show up without
a problem in Internet Explorer.
More information about the whatwg