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: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:02:57 -0700
Message-Id: <B22C36AD-2F6E-48E2-983C-6ECADC3F524A@apple.com>
Cc: 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 3:16 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.

That seems like way too much attention to a single open issue in the  
spec. I understand that you care deeply about it, but the differences  
document should be mainly about describing the state of the spec, not  
going into extensive detail about open issues. I think you should  
focus your energy on helping with the research and analysis to  
address this area in the spec, not the diffs document.

I leave it to the editor's best judgment wether it's worth expanding  
on the open issues language.

Regards,
Maciej



>
> On 29/06/07, ciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 29, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> But I don't see any suggested text for the proposed rationale.
>> >
>> > 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. I would like to see the rationale  
>> formally
>> > recorded in the differences document, but if that is not possible,
>> > then at least I propose that
>> >
>> > in "1.1. Open Issues"
>> > add to current text
>> > The headers, longdesc and summary attributes.
>>
>> These are included in "Details of accessibility and media-
>> independence features." (The more general description would also
>> include things like alt, whether there should be a nicer way to make
>> an image with full markup fallback, etc). Do you think there's a need
>> to go into more detail than that?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> with regards
>
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG Europe
> Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium
>
> www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
>
Received on Friday, 29 June 2007 23:03:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:46 UTC