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

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

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 01:38:52 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0908280138lc73a84ahb47a1766874b3228@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> >
>> > If you think it's obvious, maybe you would be willing to explain it to
>> > me?
>> >
>> > The only interpretation that I can see is that Mike means
>> > non-normative text giving an introduction to the feature to help
>> > authors use it. That, however, is not a definition, and would in any
>> > case be inappropriate for obsolete features such as those being
>> > discussed here.
>> Defining what an element or attribute means isn't "informative"; it's an
>> essential part of specifying a vocabulary.
> If by "defining" you mean text with no normative conformance criteria,
> that is untestable, and whose only purpose is to help authors work out
> what the feature is for, then no, that's an essential part of specifying a
> tutorial and is basically only fluff at the specification level. It's
> useful, important even, for features we want authors to use, but it has no
> use whatsoever for obsolete features that authors aren't allowed to use.

I assume that you don't include specifying semantic meaning in
"fluff"? I.e. the spec has always defined that <em> has the semantic
meaning of "emphasis". Like-wise the outline algorithm specifies
semantic meaning of headers and what they cover.

I *think* what is being asked for is defining the semantic meaning of
<a name="...">.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 08:40:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:50 UTC