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

Re: NEW DRAFT: HTML5-warnings - now with consistent warnings

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:47:47 -0700
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <0DA17FEA-5B26-4FEE-91DA-8F4837361D6A@apple.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>

On Aug 13, 2009, at 10:15 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:

> I have updated the HTML5-warnings draft that I intend to publish (if  
> the
> poll deems that it should be published) by applying Maciej's 3
> consistency rules along with one additional criteria (for external  
> spec
> violations). The set of consistency rules can be found in this e-mail:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0550.html
>
> This has resulted in a consistent set of warnings, based on applying  
> the
> set of rules outlined above. Each warning can be traced to an  
> unresolved
> tracker issue that is more than 4 months old, a perma-thread
> conversation (more than 100 messages long) that is more than 4 months
> old, or is a clear violation of another Internet standard:

I still disagree with the final criterion. If there is no issue  
tracker issue, it's inappropriate to put an inline marker. If there is  
an issue tracker issue but it's too new for the other criteria to  
apply, we can't say whether it's controversial yet. The spec already  
flags all intentional conflicts with other specs, so it's not like  
these are being hidden from view.

>
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#editor-s-draft-date-14-August-2009
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#urls
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#fetch
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#misinterpreted-for-compatibility
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#navigating-across-documents
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#microdata
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#obsolete
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#the-source-element
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#alt
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#the-head-element

Can you make each of these markers cite the relevant issue tracker  
issue, with both an issue number and a link to the issue tracker?  
Would you mind stating which criteria apply to each of these? Also the  
following links don't point to any marker text: fetch and  
misinterpreted-for-compatibility. The following have two markers each:  
microdata, obsolete, the-source-element, alt, the-head-element.

Do you have any comments on the section maturity markers proposed by  
James Graham?

I would also add that simply linking the issues and citing their text  
from the tracker would be less opinionated than restating the issues  
in your own works.

>
> I intend to open each one of the items above as a tracker ISSUE if  
> there
> aren't many objections to doing so in the next week. The plan is to
> integrate tracker issues warnings (that are at least 4 months old)  
> into
> the W3C WD specs (via a <div> overlay) that are published henceforth.

I would encourage you to raise the issues on the mailing list for  
discussion before raising an issue in the issue tracker. For any given  
issue, let's find out if there is really a technical problem before we  
go the bureaucratic route. I say this because issues are, it turns  
out, incredibly labor-intensive to close, so at this point I would  
rather give informal process a chance.

>
> There were a number of voting members that have expressed that making
> these changes would address their concerns regarding the publishing of
> the HTML5-warnings draft. If these changes address your concerns,  
> please
> note your agreement by updating your poll responses:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/wd08/

While I appreciate that you have made some changes, at this point in  
the poll I'm personally not inclined to change my vote.

I would like consider this issue again for the next Working Draft,  
since multiple approaches have been proposed, and that will give us a  
chance to review them without time pressure. For example, James's  
approach is not offered as an alternative in the current poll. The  
next Working Draft can be considerably sooner than 3 months.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 05:48:28 UTC

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