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

Re: My position (was RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:47:12 -0400
Message-ID: <4A7641A0.6090002@intertwingly.net>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
CC: 'Maciej Stachowiak' <mjs@apple.com>, 'Shelley Powers' <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'W3C WAI-XTECH' <wai-xtech@w3.org>, judy@w3c.org, "'Michael(tm) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>
John Foliot wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> I could not find any instances of the term "deprecated" in John's
>> diffs. So it doesn't seem like the vote is about that at all. So the
>> poll option labels seem actively misleading.
> 
> This is true.  Since Maciej explained to me yesterday the difference
> between html 4/xhtml1's deprecated/obsolete and html 5's obsolete
> (conforming/non-conforming) it became apparent that what I was originally
> proposing was not an option in html 5.

HTML 4: "Deprecated elements may become obsolete in future versions of
          HTML.  User agents should continue to support deprecated
          elements for reasons of backward compatibility."

Foliot: "It has been suggested that the summary attribute should be made
          obsolete, and the working group may vote on the matter at some
          future point."

To my reading, that's pretty darn close.  The only key difference I see 
is that you left open the door to summary being marked as obsolete in 
THIS version of HTML.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 01:47:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT