- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 21:16:24 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: > 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 > > 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. HTML5 uses the dictionary meaning of the term "obsolete" and defines what it means in terms of author conformance criteria, user agent conformance criteria, and validator conformance criteria explicitly for each feature. HTML5 doesn't use the word "deprecated" at all. > Given this information, there should be absolutely no confusion over > what the poll is about. I would like to request that when the vote is actually put up, there be a clear statement about exactly what each option means in terms of what edits I should make to the spec to match the resulting consensus. Ideally this should say what the constraints are on the resulting text, so that I still have editorial freedom in terms of how the requirements are actually phrased, since the phrasing of individual requirements is sometimes changed en bloc to address feedback regarding stylistic choices. (For example, sometimes series of paragraphs are turned into tables, or common phrases are factored out into common definitions.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 21:17:01 UTC