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: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:49:40 -0500
Message-ID: <p2u643cc0271004141649u2077329es119d5842faf2743a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

It is the responsibility of this group to know when to draw the line.
To be disciplined enough to say, "This is HTML (and XHTML and DOM),
that is not".

We're discussing Atom formatting. What does that have to do with HTML?

> 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 23:50:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC