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: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:46:51 -0400
Message-ID: <4A805D0B.8070805@digitalbazaar.com>
To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> 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.

Could you propose some replacement language that you would find
acceptable, please? If you don't, I'll attempt to author some tonight.
Clearly, the current language is confusing and doesn't address the
actual issue.

>> > 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? 

Yes, I believe it does. I'm still a little fuzzy on the details, but
those can be worked out in time.

> 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.

I agree with what you have said above, in principle. The technical
nature of implementing a consensus tracker (automatically inserting
paragraph markers, allowing thumbs-up/down voting and implementing
jump-to-paragraph summaries at the tops of sections) in the
specification is a bit more tricky, but I'm sure is a solve-able
problem. Would you be interested in collaborating on helping to write
such a system?

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny) (twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 17:47:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:49 UTC