HTML General Review #174
Comments
|
subscribe |
|
@tantek use the "Subscribe" button on the sidebar. |
|
@domenic apparently by mentioning me you subscribed me! "You’re receiving notifications because you were mentioned." |
|
Discussed at London face-to-face. Though we're likely to continue discussion to tomorrow morning. We need to figure out how to split this up. One meta-point that came up briefly was the value of specifying requirements for document conformance, which is something that HTML does but few other Web specs do. This might be worth future discussion. |
|
Examples of two specs that do specify document conformance requirements in very different ways, both from the TTWG: |
|
CSS does as well. It's not common for APIs, but for declarative formats it's fairly reasonable and establishes some rough notion of forward compatibility, by having things you're not supposed to use, but won't cause a fatal error either, thereby allowing for extensions. |
|
For this issue, we have consensus to split this up into various more specific parts of HTML for individual review. @travisleithead tasked with proposing the logical review chunks. |
HTML "Sub-specs" review breakout proposalThe features enumerated below focus on areas of the spec with browser implementation requirements (such as processing models or algorithms), and mostly skip sections of conformance criteria. Also, features with little differentiation (e.g., HTML Document and Elements (33 groups) DETAILED BREAKDOWNThe "Features" are just a sample of what you will encounter as part of the listed spec sections, it's not meant to be exhaustive. The "Sections" are all the sections of the HTML spec that would be included in the "sub spec" review. I tried to group sections of the spec that made sense together and favored each "sub-spec" with a good balance of size and complexity--though some "sub-specs" are definately bigger than others. There's still lots of entanglement, but I think this is a pretty good first attempt. Where the spec section has associated Web Platform Tests, the specific WPT path is noted. HTML Document and Elements
Structured Serialize/Deserialize
Custom Elements
HTML Linking
HTML Styling
HTML Lists
HTML Ruby
HTML Images
Browsing Contexts and Security
HTML Media
HTML Tables
HTML Forms
HTML Input
HTML Option Lists
HTML User Interaction
HTML Focus
HTML Scripting
HTML Templates
HTML Drawing
Microdata
Navigation and Browsing History
App Cache
HTML Utilities
HTML Parsing
HTML Timers and Timeslicing
Server-Sent Events
Web Sockets
Cross-Document Messaging
Web Workers
Web Storage
XML Infrastructure
HTML Obsolete Features
IANA Registries
note: the |
|
Some potential TODOs for each review:
|
|
We agreed to close this issue in favour of the new more granular issues that @travisleithead has opened up. |
|
Also see the above list as a list of issues. |
|
I'd love help untangling navigation/about:blank/general global and document lifecycle. |
|
@annevk (and others): probably best to let us know in separate issues in this repo, and with a tad more detail. (On the other hand, I'm not sure if that issue is the sort that the TAG is well-suited to help with; it sounds like it might be more a matter of doing a lot of research into what the compatibility constraints are.) |
|
Yeah, you're right. I'm not sure there's much review to be done other than of the research kind. What we primarily need is additional resources to clear all the technical debt so we have a better foundation for the rest of the platform (pretty much all of which builds on top of HTML). |
Placeholder for a HTML general review discussion that we have been discussing today.
Goal:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: