[whatwg] Administrivia: Update on the relationship between the WHATWG HTML living standard and the W3C HTML5 specification
melvincarvalho at gmail.com
Wed Jul 25 04:13:38 PDT 2012
On 20 July 2012 14:38, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve at gmail.com> 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.
> I do not consider this to be wholly that case, in particular in regards to
> author level conformance requirements and advice, where the HTML standard
> has no special claim to authority, it is not the domain of browser vendors
> to decide what is good authoring practise and any authoring requirements
> that go beyond implementation realities.
> The HTML living standard is not a canonical description of HTML, if it was
> there would be no need for the existence of specifications such as
> HTML to Platform Accessibility APIs Implementation
> this document is in existence and is being developed because neither the
> HTML5 specification nor the HTML living standard contains anything bearing
> a resemblance of what could be considered and adequate description of how
> user agents can implement accessibility support for HTML features in an
> interoperable way.
> Neither HTML5 in its current form or HTML the living standard can claim to
> be a canonical description of author conformance requirements for the
> provision of text alternatives, as there is another document in existence
> also published by the W3C that provides normative requirements for the
> The HTML standard contradicts the HTML5 specification (or vice versa) on a
> number of author conformance requirements and advisory techniques,
> including use of tables, use of ARIA and use of the title attribute.
> 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.
> All in all I do not agree with your claim of the HTML living standard
> being canonical. It is unfortunately the case that we now have at least 2
> specifications; HTML5 and the living standard neither of which can claim to
> be canonical description of HTML for stakeholders other than browser
There's been some commentary about this in blogosphere e.g.
Is it accurate to say that html5 is being 'forked', or would that be an
> with regards
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG
> www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
> Web Accessibility Toolbar -
More information about the whatwg