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

Re: Feedback on the current editor's draft

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:38:42 +0000 (UTC)
To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0908242334110.13789@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, James Graham wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > > > Could there be a more generic way to cite content coming from 
> > > > other sources than introducing a <section> element?
> > > I don't support the cite attribute on any element, because it's 
> > > "invisible" metadata by default in browsers. I think sources should 
> > > be pointed at by <a href> that Just Works even in legacy UAs.
> > 
> > The Atom conversion spec also allows <a href=... rel=bookmark> to be 
> > used instead of <article cite>. However, that doesn't address all the 
> > relevant use cases -- in particular, Chaals said he wanted hidden 
> > metadata to identify the source of sections of pages he edits.
> > 
> > If there is a desire to not have this attribute, however, I'm quite 
> > happy to remove it.
> 
> I think both @cite and @pubdate should be removed from the sectioning 
> elements. I believe Chaals' original usecase that led to the 
> introduction of the cite attribute was managing intranet content. 
> However this kind of information does not require a global shared 
> vocabulary; it seems that the use case would be better addressed by 
> using one of the several mechanisms for embedding custom data into HTML 
> documents.
> 
> The pubdate attribute shares the problem of being hidden metadata and, 
> for its primary usecase (automatic conversion to atom) it is highly 
> likely to duplicate existing visible data. This seems like a 
> particularly problematic design. Instead it would be better to reuse the 
> <time> element somehow e.g. adding some attribute that indicates that it 
> represents the publication date of its closest ancestor section element.

cite="" is gone from <Section> and <Article>.

I haven't removed pubdate="" yet. I don't know what to replace it with:

   <article pubdate="2009-01-13">...</article>

...becoming:

   <time pubdate datetime="2009-01-13">...</time>

...doesn't seem like a win.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 23:38:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:51 UTC