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

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

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:45:13 -0500
Message-ID: <4A804E99.80204@burningbird.net>
To: Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, WHATWG <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
Toby A Inkster wrote:
> On 9 Aug 2009, at 14:32, Manu Sporny wrote:
>
>> 2. Two other independent voices to support the publishing of this draft.
>>    Without those voices, this proposal cannot be considered for
>>    publishing.
>
>
> I think you already have those two other voices.
>
> FWIW, I agree that warnings about controversial passages of the draft 
> - areas "at risk" - should be included in a published draft. They may 
> turn out to be very valuable for early adopters of HTML5. For people 
> whom development time comes at a premium, it may be important to avoid 
> areas of HTML5 which are very likely to change before final 
> publication. Conversely, those who have a lot of development time on 
> their hands could even be encouraged to experiment in the more "at 
> risk" parts of HTML5, so that they can feedback their experience to 
> this group.
>
> I've not spent enough time reading Manu's edition of the HTML5 draft 
> to decide whether the particular parts he's highlighted are the best 
> parts to mark "at risk" (and perhaps even getting consensus on this 
> list of parts to highlight could be daunting) but I certainly agree 
> that in principle such parts should be noted.
>
Another assenting voice, here.

I really appreciated seeing all the areas where there are ongoing 
discussions and concerns, and controversies, marked out in one spot. 
I've been following about half a dozen issues, but just can't follow 
everything. It's nice to see something pull this together. The issues 
database is too disconnected from the document, and most people aren't 
going to look at it.

The only addition I would have is about the entire obsolete section, 
because of language such as "obsolete but conforming". Removing the 
previous deprecated/obsolete definitions and sections is controversial, 
and has been a matter of discussion. There's also a great deal of 
confusion about "obsolete but conforming".

It's too bad that the canvas element was previously voted on, because it 
has no place in the HTML 5 specification. Including it within the spec 
limits its usefulness and arbitrarily ties it the HTML document. There 
has been interest about pulling this one out into a separate working 
group, and I'd volunteer to be a member of that group if this happens. I 
don't know if this fits within the "warning" criteria though.

I have another major concern, but I know it won't enjoy consensus, so 
I'll bring it up at a separate time.

All in all, this was a really good idea. It shows a true state of the 
effort, at a glance.

Appreciate you doing this, Manu.

Shelley
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 16:46:09 UTC

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