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

Re: Spec with issue markers [was: Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD]

From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:09:05 -0700
Message-ID: <F652F7EEF804411DA16D101181E2CB28@joe1446a4150a8>
To: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "James Graham" <jgraham@opera.com>, <public-html@w3.org>
Sam > From what I hear, plenty of people support this draft, but I 
desperately don't want to reopen the discussion, so I am asking if 
there is *anybody* who would prefer that we publish the editors draft 
as it was before this change was made.



Can someone give a link that lands close to one of these so I can be 
sure what I am looking at?

Do all these start with an unusual character then the word and 
punctuatuion "Warning!"
Are they all in red type in a red box?

"Stability
Different parts of this specification are at different levels of 
maturity."

Maybe add a description of these notations somewhere like adding to 
the pararaph above.

I object in a minor way to calling the comments "Warning" becasue they 
are clearly not a technical warning in the technical communications 
sense. A warning should state the hazard, what you might do to get in 
trouble, and also tell the result of not heeding the warning. Also, 
red is already used for other stuff.

p.warning:before { content: '\26A0 Warning! '; }

why does this generate text that is selected but not copied and won't 
paste?

The string Warning! with whatever that leading character is in front 
is not found by in page search.

example:
"In certain UAs, some elements don't trigger the "in body" mode 
straight away, but instead get put into the head. Do we want to copy 
that?

Should probably make end tags be ignored, so that 
"</head><!-- --><html>" puts the comment before the root node (or 
should we?)"

Other notations in red boxes, like at one that precedes 9.2.5.6, are 
sort of the same but obviously different.

example:
"7.9.1 Introduction

This section is non-normative.

It's also currently non-existent."

An instance of a red box without a warning?

To me, that last line in a red box is not valuable

"There has got to be a better way of doing this, surely."

another one that seems out of place here, but I agree broadly with the 
words.

"This API sucks..."

Another unlabeled red box with basically a rant as contents.

Again, not sure how this helps with no ref to issue or bug or 
whatever.

Thank You and Best Regardes,
Joe
http://www.web3d.org/x3d/wiki/index.php/X3D_and_HTML5
Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 16:09:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:44 GMT