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: Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:22:06 -0700
Message-ID: <o2j3b31caf91004141522i29c7a14cp847b1a19fbf21f6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Julian wrote:
> Also, it's not clear *at all* whether this is a feature that people
> really want

It's a feature I really want. I'd like to simply publish semantic HTML
and have software produce whatever other formats I need from the HTML
that I write.

I've scribbled some thoughts on this on my blog:
http://edward.oconnor.cx/2010/04/html-to-atom

> and if they do, whether it needs to be part of HTML5.

I'm not sure if anything at all "needs to be part of HTML5." It's our
job as a WG to figure out what bits we want in, and what we want out.
This is an example of a bit I think is appropriate to include.

Sam 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.

I'm not quite sure which point you're fishing for objections to.
ISSUE-86 says "Either just reference the requirement in the base spec,
or make it a MUST." I don't think it's reasonable to require a MUST,
as there are conceivably many circumstances in which it's impossible
to generate a stable ID. That said, I would prefer the algorithm
remain in the spec. I'm all for the algorithm being improved wherever
possible.


Ted
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2010 22:22:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:07 GMT