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.


> 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  

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 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:22 UTC