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

Re: some thoughts on objections to publishing ""HTML 5 differences from HTML 4"

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:20:34 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80707010520h67a2528fo55980405dc3a1956@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>

I accept the reasoning behind the rationales not being included within
this document.

also, read my responses to maciej

in which i explain that the email i sent (accidently) and was not
finished, the quoted text is already a part of the draft.

> With this in mind, would you accept the changes I proposed at the end of
> my previous mail [1], as a suitable resolution to this issue?

Again, see my response to maciej as to what i believe is a suitable solution.

On 01/07/07, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
> Steven Faulkner wrote:
> > The rationale for dropping the headers,longdesc and summary attributes
> > was presumably formulated by the WHAT WG when the decisions to drop
> > these attributes was made.
> As Hixie has tried to explain previously, the rationale for not
> including some was because, at the time, there was insufficient research
> of the issue and a lack of evidence to support their inclusion.
> > I would like to see the rationale formally recorded in the differences
> > document
> The purpose of the document is to describe the differences between HTML
> 4.01 and the current state of HTML5, in order assist in the discovery of
> what has been changed.  While outlining the current state of affairs and
> giving a brief overview of known outstanding issues is helpful,
> explaining why certain changes have or have not yet been made with
> detailed rationale is well beyond the scope of the document.
> I am adamant that the document must represent a neutral point of view on
> all issues.  Mentioning that there are open issues and listing a few of
> them in an objective way is fine, but attempting to rationalise issues,
> especially controversial issues, seriously risks affecting its neutrality.
> In fact, there appears to be cases where the document isn't as neutral
> as it should be.  e.g.
> | The following elements have been removed because they have not been
> | used often, created confusion or can be handled by other elements:
> |
> | * acronym is not included because it has created lots of confusion.
> |   Authors are to use abbr for abbreviations.
> Saying that it created confusion only represents one side of the issue.
>   There are some people who believe both acronym and abbr should be
> included and are clearly distinct.  There are others that believe both
> should be allowed and defined synonymously.  There are probably others
> that believe acronym should be chosen over abbr because it has better
> support in IE.  In order to remain as neutral as possible, I recommend
> changing that text to the following:
> * acronym is considered redundant in favour of abbr.
> > in
> > "3.6. Dropped Attributes"
> > the text
> > "Some attributes from HTML 4 are no longer allowed in HTML 5"
> I'm not sure how that proposed text addresses your issue at all.  In
> fact, it seems to make it worse because you're objection is based on
> your opinion that several of those features should be allowed and the
> lack of rationale for why they aren't.
> With this in mind, would you accept the changes I proposed at the end of
> my previous mail [1], as a suitable resolution to this issue?
> [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/46855A2E.7060908@lachy.id.au
> --
> Lachlan Hunt
> http://lachy.id.au/

with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2007 12:20:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:23 UTC