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

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

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:11:47 +0200
Message-ID: <4A801C93.2080806@malform.no>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Manu Sporny Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:03:27 -0400:
>
> > Regarding Manu's draft, I think it would be better if the
> > warning messages appeared in context.
>
> I attempted to place the warning messages in the proper context.
>
> If they are not in the proper context, they can be moved. Some are going
> to disagree with what constitutes the "proper context". Could you
> clarify and note which warnings are not in the proper context?
[ snip  - see bottom ]

> > A warning that appears in
> > context is also more likely to be accurate (example the 'blank @alt'
> > warning is currently incorrect/unclear).
>
> I believe that you're the second person to point this out so I'll
> re-examine the wording/clarity issue. Could you please provide the exact
> language that would be acceptable to you?

You used the wording "blank alt", which for most people is equal to

    alt=""

But such a blank alt is allowed and recommended if the image is decorative.


> > I would therefore suggest changing the current warnings to some
> > kind of standard text - like:
> >
> >    This section has a the following warnings about lack of consensus:
> >      <a href="#X">attribute X</a> (Serious)<br>
> >      <a href="#Y">codec Y</a> (Minor)<br>
> >      <a href="#Z">feature Z</a> (Normal).
> >
> > Effectively it would also be a in-document consensus tracker.
>
> Leif, I really like the idea of an in-document consensus tracker... it's
> a tool we're going to need going forward. I'm afraid that drafting new
> polls for every controversial feature of HTML5 is going to be incredibly
> time consuming, which is an issue I think your idea could address (aside
> from being a helpful documentation tool).

Does this answer your questions regarding what I meant by "in context" 
then? Basically, I think that - for attention - the warnings should be 
remain where you placed them. However, instead of being full text 
warning that explain the issues, your "top warnings" should simply 
become more generalized warnings which link to the context - the exact 
paragraph - where the the controversial issue is stated (or not stated). 
At this location also the explained of why it is controversial should 
appear.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 13:15:34 UTC

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