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

Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:50:31 -0400
Message-ID: <4A7F6ED7.7020205@digitalbazaar.com>
To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Replying to multiple people... cc: -WHATWG

Julian Reschke wrote:
>> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#urls
> 
> I think that note should be rephrased; as far as I can tell, W3C, WHATWG
> and IETF people are working together to improve the situation. The main
> risk here is that revising RFC3987 (IRI) may take longer than we all
> wish, due to unrelated issues.

I can re-word it to be less adversarial - could you suggest some
language that would be acceptable to you?

> Optimally, the "hyperlink auditing" (a/@ping) section should be
> mentioned as well.

I'd be happy to mark this section as controversial as long as there is
an explanation or discussion related to why that section should be
marked. I don't necessarily see the issue with the @ping feature at
first glance, so I wouldn't feel good marking it as controversial
without understanding why it is controversial.

However, even if I don't end up marking it - you are free to use the
tools[1] I used to make the HTML5-warnings document and submit those to
the HTML WG (or check them into github and I can pull the changes from
your HTML5 spec repository).

John Foliot wrote:
> At this time there is no harm in having 2 efforts being
> recognized as serious proposals, and in fact that may be a good thing.
> "Say that you can do X, Y or Z" instead of "Don't do X"...

While I suggested that the poll be changed to support that option, these
set of proposals are not the best ones to use to make that point.

Basically we have Ian's HTML5 proposal (A) and we have the
HTML5-warnings proposal (A+B). Since HTML5-warnings is just Ian's
proposal with a bunch of warnings, it seems sort of redundant to publish
both proposals since by publishing HTML5-warnings, we publish Ian's
proposal by inclusion. That being said, what we publish is up to the
HTML WG... so I defer to the group.

Ian Hickson wrote:
> If the idea is to mark up all the issues where someone disagrees, then
> there are a number of other sections we should mark...

The idea is not to mark up all of the issues where someone disagrees.
One of the ideas is to mark up the issues that seem to involve current
or potential disagreement in larger communities both inside and outside
of the WHAT WG and HTML WG (such as other W3C groups, IETF groups, or
other standards bodies).

Marking every disagreement in the HTML5 spec is not the goal, as it
would be difficult to implement. Besides, we have an issue tracker for
that particular purpose (tracking bug reports).

Basically, when I saw something that has or could trigger a perma-thread
discussion surrounding a feature (such as @summary did for the last two
weeks), I marked the feature as controversial.

I agree with most of the comments that assert that we will need a better
metric going forward. The one I used is based on observation and while
that may be passable for this iteration of the spec, it must be improved
before publishing the next iteration. I'm open to ideas and suggestions
on other sections that should be marked as controversial (including
reasoning as to why they should be considered controversial - links to
papers, discussions, perma-threads, etc. would be helpful).

More responses to follow tomorrow...

-- manu

[1] http://github.com/html5/spec/

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 00:51:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:06 UTC