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: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:35:40 -0700
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <8B303612-9BBF-4477-9C97-FD9F25365D77@apple.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>

On Aug 25, 2009, at 3:27 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Aug 24, 2009, at 11:42 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> 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,
>
> As an implementor of content management systems, HTML generators,
> and link management tools, I do not consider it defined at all.

Content management systems and HTML generators should not output the  
name attribute. They should use id instead. That much is stated. What  
else do they need to know? I don't know what link management tools  
would want to do with <a name>; if you can give some examples it might  
be easier to see what is missing.

>> 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.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/define
>
> HTML 4.01 spec has attribute definitions.  HTML5 draft does not.

That doesn't really clarify anything for me, I'm afraid.

>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.2
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-a-element

See the last paragraph before the note in this section (starting with  
"Authors should not specify..."):
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#obsolete-but-conforming-features

Can you clarify why what HTML4.01 says is a definition, but that  
paragraph is not?


Regards,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 22:36:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 1 October 2014 21:47:36 UTC