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

Re: fear of "invisible metadata"

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:04:04 +0900
Message-Id: <3E62C3EB-5714-44C3-9E65-F3CC0BC1934F@w3.org>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
To: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>


Le 26 juin 2007 à 02:01, Sander Tekelenburg a écrit :
> So in HTML5 classid, codebase, codetype, archive, declare and  
> standby are all
> gone for good? I mean, <img> doesn't exactly seem to have rid  
> itself of
> longdesc just yet, judging by the discussions. So who knows how  
> <object> will
> end up. But yeah, if <object> is simplified in HTML5, that's  
> certainly an
> improvement.

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#the-object

> Sorry, but although that does seem better than what HTML 4 says, I  
> cannot
> imagine this is clear language to authors. "*treated* as an image"? A
> "browsing context"?

I think we would have a lot better use of our times by writing the  
semantics definition of each element from the point of view of the  
author.

For example, Sander, How would you write the HTML 5 object element as  
defined in the specification but for authors. Extracting from the  
definition what is necessary to know for an author. I think that  
would help a lot.

Could you do it it here in the email?



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 04:04:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:45 UTC