W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2009

Re: WG review of HTML5

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:52:29 -0400
Message-ID: <49DD007D.2000609@intertwingly.net>
To: sean@elementary-group-standards.com
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org, Robert Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
Sean Fraser wrote:
> Sam,
> 
>> From your blog post as noted,
> 
>> On Wed 08/04/09  5:35 AM , Sam Ruby  wrote: Additionally, I've
>> written a blog post outlining an approach to dealing
> with a number of issues which have been raised from outside of this 
> working group.  [1] I believe what I described there is largely 
> consistent with the approach that Rob has suggested.
> 
>> - Sam Ruby
> 
>> [1] http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/04/08/HTML-Reunification
> 
> would you please clarify this sentence:

I'll try.  Let me know if I succeed.

> "This in no way precludes someone or a group producing a separate
> best practices guidelines for authors, and if they want to suggest
> that their version of best practices are in conflict with the
> recommendations of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working
> Group, the SVG Working Group, the Semantic Web Deployment Working
> Group, I wish them luck."
> 
> I do not understand this.

At the IETF, there is a set of documents called "Best Current Practices" 
documents:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Current_Practice
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/categories/rfc-best.html

If such a document were produced at the W3C and were to collect up the 
recommendations of the groups I referred to, it would state such things 
as @alt attributes are always mandatory on <img> tags, quotes around 
attribute values would be mandatory for all children of <svg> elements, 
and @property attributes with legal CURIE values would be considered 
conformant on <h2> elements (among many others).

The current HTML 5 draft is currently at variance will all three.  It 
also marks @profile attributes, <summary> and <font> elements as 
non-conforming.

As I understand Rob's intentions, his document would focus only on 
interoperable browser behavior.  As <font> is widely implemented and 
interoperable, it would be included in the document.  He would gladly 
note, in a nice, even tone, any issues with interoperability that there 
might be (not so much with <font> elements, but there clear issues with 
<summary> elements and @profile attributes).

But if somebody wants to write a companion BCP document that limits or 
even prohibits the use of <font> elements or requires quotes on every 
attribute value anywhere, then that would be fine.

> Thanks,
> 
> Sean Fraser

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 19:53:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:02 UTC