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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:42:14 -0700
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <3633FE3A-E823-44C6-9F10-6310C9A989CE@apple.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>

On Aug 24, 2009, at 5:46 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> 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>?

As an implementor, I think the required processing is sufficiently  
defined, and in the places where I would look when implementing,  
testing or refining the pieces of code where its behavior would be  
exposed. The name is attribute is mainly relevant to implementors not  
when implementing the element, but rather when implementing the  
various collections and other APIs that expose certain elements accor

Do you think anything specific about <a name> (whether authoring  
requirements, implementation requirements or anything else) needs to  
be defined, but isn't? Or is it just a matter of where in the spec the  
information is found? I can file a bug for you if you feel that needed  
info is missing and if you can tell me what it is.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 06:50:17 UTC

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