W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > March 2010

[Bug 7034] authoring conformance requirements in the spec should either be removed or replaced

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:43:50 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Nqrqw-00004s-3E@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7034





--- Comment #21 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  2010-03-14 17:43:49 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> At the present time, the only effective means by which a working group
> participant can obtain a rationale for why any given restriction is included in
> the spec is to file a bug and ask for that restriction to be removed.  In this
> case, we have a large number controversial restrictions for which there is no
> single place that a person can go to find the answer as to why those
> restrictions were put in there in the first place.
> 
> I'm open to proceeding with a separate bug or change proposal for each
> attribute or element that is commonly used, or with a single omnibus bug report
> such as this one, or with escalating this as a single issue.

My recommendation:

At the very least you should list the specific changes you're proposing.
Ideally a separate bug for each (so we can have a clear record in bugzilla of
which were accepted and which were reected)., but listing them all in this bug
would still be an improvement on the current state. Given the current contents
of the bug, it's not possible to tell what kinds of changes would satisfy your
request.

However, one bug per issue is even better than an "omnibus bug report". One bug
per issue is good because the requests can be fielded individually, and we end
up with a clear record of which requests were accepted or rejected and why, and
which change was made for each.

(In reply to comment #20)
> I will suggest that http://google.com/ as a starting point.
[...]
> At the present time, the HTML5 validator produces 47 messages -- some of them
> warnings, most of the errors -- on that page.  I believe that the optimum
> number is zero.

Would turning all of these errors into non-errors be necessary and sufficient
to satisfy your request? If so, that should be sufficient information, and
there would be no need to list which rules you think should change in more
detail (though it would be useful to paste in the current error log in the bug
for reference).


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 14 March 2010 17:43:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 14 March 2010 17:43:51 GMT