W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

RE: Answering the question... (timing of table headers issue)

From: John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:43:41 -0700
To: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, <wai-xtech@w3.org>, <whatwg@whatwg.org>, <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <011a01c7e5d7$0de29170$582b42ab@Piglet>

Dan Connolly wrote:
>> * Is Lachlan Hunt definitive when stating, "HTML5 now defines the
>> usemap attribute as a Hashed ID Reference, not a URI, and can only
>> reference maps within the same document."
>> [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=189643], as well as
>> "HTML5 currently will not be including the usemap attribute on input
>> elements." [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=392994]
> 
> He seems to be accurately quoting from current editor's drafts. That
> seems like a useful way to get feedback from the 
> mozilla development community, no?

I disagree.  He is stating it as "fact", when in reality it is the current
thinking.  If you are seeking feedback, then it is a proposal: re-read what
Lachlan has written, it does not sound like a proposal, but rather a firm
decision to which mozilla should be conforming to (it's a bug report!!!).


>> * Is Maciej Stachowiak correct when he states, "This feature is
>> underspecified in HTML4, and not implemented by IE. It is also likely
>> to be dropped in HTML5 and may be removed from Mozilla and Opera as a
>> result." [http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15032]
> 
> I accept "underspecified" and "likely to be dropped" as his opinion,
> and as far as I know he's correct that it's not implemented by IE. 

Fair enough, but by reading this, there is no indication that it is opinion,
and is further clouded by the fact that he is making a projection regarding
2 browser's "future" implementation/non-implementation, even though he does
not work for nor speak for either.  Failing to recognize that this is a
problem is of concern.

> 
>> These types of pronouncements *do* tend to send mixed messages, don't
>> you agree?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> That's an accurate reflection of the constituencies in the working
> group: there are a variety of opinions. We could have chartered the
> working group to keep its discussions member-confidential until we
> reached consensus, but I don't think that would be better.  
> 

Clearly allowing any and all to espouse their opinion as de-facto "decision"
is not working either.

JF
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 22:43:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:48 UTC