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

Re: change proposal for issue-86, was: ISSUE-86 - atom-id-stability - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:09:54 -0400
Message-ID: <4BC62F22.6050503@intertwingly.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On 04/14/2010 04:39 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 14.04.2010 21:58, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>
>>> Given that discussion has died down, and that this proposal has gotten
>>> several indications of support and (as of yet) no objections, at this
>>> time I would like anybody in the Working Group that has reason to object
>>> to this item to state so now. If none come forward, the chairs will
>>> issue a Call for Consensus.
>>
>> If the W3C HTML WG does not want to define a mapping from HTML to Atom,
>> then I'm happy to remove it from the W3C copy of the spec. However, the
>> text would remain in the WHATWG copy as the WHATWG has received feedback
>> asking for such a mapping to be defined, and defining one seems harmless.

Speaking only as a member of the Atom community: the notion of defining 
one not only seems harmless, it actually is (mildly) appealing.  That 
being said, what is currently in the draft specification is actively 
harmful.  It is my hope that any browser vendor strongly consider the 
input of the Atom community before implementing what is currently spec'ed.

> In which case I recommend that you seek the feedback of the Atom
> community, and fix potential bugs in the spec (such as thise described
> in my first change proposal, but there may be more).

If there is a consensus to fix these and other bugs, then I would 
support an Atom mapping remaining in the W3C HTML5 spec.

> Best regards, Julian

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2010 21:10:28 UTC

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