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

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

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:27:16 -0500
Message-Id: <8521AF05-9F26-49F4-83B2-F60DBC344DD7@robburns.com>
Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>


On Jun 29, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Steven Faulkner wrote:

>
>> Do you think there's a need to go into more detail than that?
>
> yes I do, that is why I proposed
>
> in "1.1. Open Issues"
>
> add to current text
>
> "The headers, longdesc and summary attributes."
>
>
> To make it perfectly clear that the dropping or omission or whatever
> of these attributes is an open issue.
>
>
> Furthermore I was going to propose in my previous email, (that i sent
> accidently before it was complete.)
>
> That a sentence be inserted in 3.6. Dropped Attributes
>
> "Note: The decision to drop of some of the attributes in this section
> is currently being debated by the working group. As a consequence one
> or more may be allowed in HTML 5"
>
> Again to ensure that the disputed status of headers, longdesc and
> summary attributes is clearly recorded within the document.

I don't think this is even clear enough. What is happening to many of  
these attributes and elements is not yet addressed. The are NOT  
DROPPED or OMITTED. They are just not yet considered. So they need to  
be pulled out of the section on dropped/omitted elements and  
attributes and placed in an entirely different section that explains  
that the WG hopes to find new and better ways to deal with the  
particular semantics provided  the $.01 facilities. Again, they are  
neither Dropped or Omitted. They are yet to be addressed.

Take care,
Rob. 
Received on Friday, 29 June 2007 22:27:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:01 GMT