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

Re: ISSUE-53: mediatypereg - suggest closing on 2009-09-03

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:46:21 -0700
Message-Id: <417D24E8-9868-4768-BA8D-20BDFB1E2A72@gbiv.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
On Aug 24, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2009, at 6:25 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> ...
>>> That should be simple.  Is there anybody who is *opposed* to  
>>> HTML5 describing all elements/attributes of previous specs?
>>> Ian indicated that he believes that it does.  You have pointed  
>>> out that it does not currently.  If we treat these differences as  
>>> bugs (and add a history section, as you and Anne discussed), is  
>>> this issue resolved?
>>
>> Yes!
>
> Add definition of <meta scheme> <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/ 
> show_bug.cgi?id=7412>
> Add definition of <html profile> <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/ 
> show_bug.cgi?id=7413>
> Please add a history section <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/ 
> show_bug.cgi?id=7414>
>
> I believe the editor intends to take action on all of these. Are  
> any other bugs needed?

I don't think that section 12.2 satisfies the issue.  What is wrong
with defining the elements and attributes where an implementor of
"text/html" is going to need to know about them and simply mark those
features as deprecated?  For example, <a name> has required processing
associated with it, so why not just define that under <a>?

....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 00:46:48 UTC

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