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

Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 07:42:47 -0400
Message-ID: <4A757BB7.8030603@intertwingly.net>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> If John removes his objection, and nobody else comes forward, then there 
>> will be no remaining options, and therefore no poll.  If he does not, 
>> there are two options:
>>
>>   1) Publish with @summary marked as obsolete
>>   2) Publish with @summary marked as deprecated
> 
> Given the recent confusion over what those terms mean (in particular, 
> given that the HTML5 spec uses the word "obsolete" in a manner that is 
> distinct from the way that HTML4 uses both "obsolete" and "deprecated"), 
> it would be useful if such a poll defined the terms so that there is no 
> ambiguity about what the decision actually is.
> 
> (As an editor, I'd have no idea what to do given as a resolution either 
> "mark summary as obsolete" or "mark summary as deprecated". As far as I 
> can tell, HTML5 could be argued to do both already.)

It is indeed a problem that the current draft does not precisely specify 
what these terms mean in a way anywhere near as clearly as HTML 4 did.

However for purposes of this poll, that will not be an issue.  I will 
confirm that John Foliot has made available an updated draft and sent a 
pointer to it to you, me, and Mike, along with a concise list of 
differences.  Ian, check your mail for an message with a Message-ID of 
<014f01ca134f$d127a1a0$7376e4e0$@edu>.

Given this information, there should be absolutely no confusion over 
what the poll is about.

> Cheers,

- Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 11:43:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:50 UTC