W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: ISSUE-107 Change Proposal

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:49:26 -0500
Message-ID: <j2o643cc0271004131249mabc9e26o692235692af0a9b1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> SUMMARY
>
> The example in the description of the <param> element currently just
> transports an anti-plugin opinion of the author. It *should* be an example
> that actually makes sense in practice.
>
> RATIONALE
>
> The purpose of examples in spec text is to illustrate a specific feature,
> not to transport a specific opinion about other technologies.
>
> DETAILS
>
> The spec currently has the following example:
>
>   <object type="application/vnd.o3d.auto">
>    <param name="o3d_features" value="FloatingPointTextures">
>    This page requires the use of a proprietary technology. Since you
>    have not installed the software product required to view this
>    page, you should try visiting another site that instead uses open
>    vendor-neutral technologies.
>   </object>
>
> The problem with the fallback text is that it's not a good example at all;
> it just transports an anti-plugin point of view. Why would *anybody* *ever*
> put that text into a page?
>
> A more realistic example would use fallback text with instructions about
> where to actually get the plugin.
>
> Such as:
>
>   <object type="application/vnd.o3d.auto">
>    <param name="o3d_features" value="FloatingPointTextures">
>    This page requires the use of the FOOBAR O3D plugin. Get it
>    from the <a href="...">FOOBAR O3D Download Page</a>.
>   </object>
>
> IMPACT
>
> 1. Positive Effects
>
> The example actually makes sense in that it could occur in a real-world web
> page.
>
> 2. Negative Effects
>
> None.
>
> 3. Conformance Classes Changes
>
> None.
>
> 4. Risks
>
> None.
>
> REFERENCES
>
> None.
>
>

I don't want to come across as a Julian fangirl, but I strongly concur
with this change proposal.

It would be a good exercise to review the examples all throughout the
document, and do a general clean up. However, such a process doesn't
fit within this group's Decision process, so we must do the work, a
tiny bit at a time.

This document should represent a neutral viewpoint, and meet the
highest professional standard. Julian's replacement example does both.

Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 19:50:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:16 UTC