Linux and Open Source Software on Laptops, Netbooks and Desktops

Project Overview | Distros | Video Editing | Video on the Web | About and Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Review of Draft HTML5 Specification

Marghanita da Cruz

This is a work in progress. Areas of interest but not yet commented on are listed at the bottom under Sections under Review

The comments provided relate to the Editors Draft of the Day and are of three types

The comments are categorised by the section or topic and include:

  1. links to the author's comments posted to the HTML5 WG Public Mailing List & www-smil@w3.org (*SMIL)

  2. comments on the content of the editors draft of the day

  3. suggested rewording for clarity (implicitly reflects the interpretation of existing wording of the draft of the day)

Photo of Aerobic Compost BinImg/Video/Audio Metadata

Image with longdesc (try mouseover and check properties with right click):

Posting to HTML5 WG Public Mailing List & SMIL Mailing List 1 December 2007-

Sections Reviewed/Comments 9-12 October 2007

Sections Reviewed/Draft Comments 26-28 September 2007

These comments are based on the 25 September 2007 Editors Draft provided at HTML5. It should be noted that at the time these comments were made, the Editors draft was undergoing frequent revision and may have been superseded.

Proposal for the creation of an Architecture section in the Specification

These comments also draw on and reference discussions in which the author participated and those prior to her joining the working group. Reflecting on the difficulty with the Principles perhaps a section describing the Architectural Framework and Assumptions for HTML5 would be useful.

This idea was previously canvassed on the public mailing list in 2007JanMar/0623.html

It is touched upon in the Scope section which discusses the HTML5 relationship to HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.1, DOM2 HTML, XHTML2, XUL, Flash, Silverlight, and other proprietary UI languages. Though discussion of FORMs and CSS and XML, which would probably help authors with positioning/correctly choosing between XML and HTML is only touched upon later in the Specification.

Architecture has been a recurring theme on the public mailing list, see 2007Aug/0677 2007Jul/1098 2007Jul/0895 2007Jul/0719 2007Jun/0898 2007May/0582 2007May/0440 2007May/0093 including on Accessibility Architecture /2007Jun/0572 and 2007Sep/0344.

Should some reference also be made in a section discussion XML, to particular applications of XML which have been widely adopted on the web - RSS being and obvious example and been raised before 2007JanMar/0669

The discussion of the DOM should be in relation to how HTML5 uses/relies on it and any limitations it imposes on HTML(web documents) and the version to be supported

It may also be useful to introduce a broad category of "Reader" to complement the "Author". Leading to conformance for categories of Reading and Authoring Tools.

Linking the discussion on Principles, it seems that "PROVISION OF FALLBACK" is meant and should replace DEGRADE GRACEFULLY in the principles 2007JanMar/0281 and as I suggested previously the examples of SUPPORTING EXISTING CONTENT is really an application of DEGRADE GRACEFULLY. See 2007Sep/0342 and 2007Sep/0414

Sections Currently under Review

www.ramin.com.au/linux/review-of-html5.shtml © Ramin Communications. Last modified 25 February 2010.