- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:48:04 -0400
- To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "Jens O. Meiert" <jens@meiert.com>
- CC: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On 09/23/2013 09:46 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: > > In the case of cite, part of the changes made to the W3C spec meant that > what Google and Bing were putting in their search result pages is > actually valid. I.e. the spec changed to match practice, which actually > seems to match the advice that was given for most of the last > decade-and-a-half. I believe that is in line with the principles of > WHAT-WG so I am surprised that they maintain the restrictive definition > they currently have. Update: the WHAT-WG has chosen to make no change in response to these bugs: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23313#c1 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23314#c2 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23315#c1 On 09/22/2013 09:31 PM, Jens O. Meiert wrote: > Sam, I think I’ve been specific. I’ve pointed to elements that cause > confusion and I pointed to where and how they cause confusion. I guess I could have been clearer. Jens: if you disagree with the editor's feedback to date in the following bugs, please explain why in the bugs themselves: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23008 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23175 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22996 - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 23 September 2013 20:48:32 UTC