W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2008

Re: PFWG report on @headers status

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:04:27 -0600
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0811250704n5a63cff2ma9d68f868eae5de5@mail.gmail.com>
To: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie
Cc: "Al Gilman" <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>, "Janina Sajka" <janina@a11y.org>, "Michael Cooper" <cooper@w3.org>, "Gez Lemon" <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>

Hi Josh,

Thanks for the report.

One thing that I would like to document in the Wiki is the design notes sub-point on cyclic referencing. You mentioned:

> There has bee some concern voiced about the potential for cyclic
> references if chained headers were allowed in the specification. This
> seems to some degree to be unfounded. The relationship between a
> header and any corresponding chained/nested/ conceptual header that
> follows it is uni-directional and not bi-directional. This also
> follows if the id of a <td> cell is to be referenced from a chained
> header.

How is this point semi-founded? How can it be addressed and resolved as  either "founded" or "unfounded"?

I thought that detail had been discussed previously and had been resolved:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Sep/0457.html

In order to make progress on this issue, it would be good to declare this point one way or the other.

Thanks again.

Best Regards,
Laura

--
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2008 15:05:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:27 GMT