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

Re: Consolidated issues that may qualify as "controversial"

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:22:35 -0500
Message-ID: <4A82B40B.6090702@burningbird.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> Based on my review of issues 1-45.
>
> ISSUE-1: PINGPOST - hyperlink auditing requires use of unsafe HTTP method
> ISSUE-2: PINGUI - Practicability of UI requirements for hyperlink 
> auditing
> ISSUE-4: html-versioning - HTML Versioning and DOCTYPEs
> ISSUE-7: video-codecs - codec support and the <video> element
> ISSUE-27:  rel-ownership - @rel value ownership, registry consideration
> ISSUE-30: longdesc - Should HTML 5 include a longdesc attribute for 
> images
> ISSUE-31: missing-alt - What to do when a reasonable text equivalent 
> is unknown/unavailable?
> ISSUE-32: table-summary - how to provide a summary of a table, e.g. 
> for unsighted navigation?
>
>
>
> There is also a special case around ARIA:
> ISSUE-14: aria-role - Integration of WAI-ARIA roles into HTML5
> ISSUE-35: aria-processing - Need to define processing requirements for 
> aria states and properties when used in html
>
> I believe everyone agrees that the correct resolution is to integrate 
> ARIA, but that is currently blocked on decisions by the PFWG. I don't 
> think it would be meaningful or productive to label this issue as 
> "controversial", rather, the HTML WG should make a formal request to 
> PFWG to expedite the resolution of their pending issue.
>
>
> I will put this growing list on the Wiki at some point soon. Once I 
> get into issues that are less than 4 months old, I will start 
> searching mailing list archives to see if they qualify.
>
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
>
I must have missed this some where, but why exactly are you doing this? 
And I'm not being facetious, there was a lot of email yesterday, so I 
may have missed what this was about. I understood the issue closings, 
but not the Wiki et al activity.

If you're covering open items that have not been resolved, then I 
believe there are two I added yesterday (issues 76 and 77) that are both 
open, and have not been resolved. I'm fairly sure that they're both 
controversial, too.

How obsolete/deprecated are being handled in HTML 5 underlies much of 
the summary discussion, and also underlies longdesc, as well as how 
other obsoleted elements and attributes are handled.

I would say that the microdata/RDFa issue is also controversial, and we 
know that discussion started back in April, though much of the 
discussion was in the WhatWG.

Regardless, I'm not sure what you're doing, since we have the issues 
list to document these items. Is it for deciding which items should be 
included as warnings in the HTML 5 document?

Shelley
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 12:23:19 UTC

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