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: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 01:30:52 -0700
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <D2802CEF-1E5C-45E9-9C27-5941082A0271@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:04 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 08.04.2010 20:12, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> Since a number of people have expressed interest, I think it would be
>> helpful to provide a second proposal along these lines.
>
> Sure. Here it is:

Recorded here now: http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-086


>
> SUMMARY
>
> The HTML5 spec contains an algorithm for producing an Atom (RFC4287)  
> feed document from an HTML page.
>
> There are many problems with this, summarized under RATIONALE.
>
> This Change Proposal removes the complete section defining this  
> algorithm.
>
> RATIONALE
>
> The are multiple problems with the algorithm for Atom generation:
>
> 1) It's not clear that a sufficient amount of people is interested  
> in this. HTML pages that would be candidates for this usually are  
> generated from a different source, like an article database, or even  
> a feed document. Therefore, providing both simply is not a problem  
> for the author. Defining a feature that is of little use increases  
> the spec size (more to review) and the risk of getting things wrong  
> because of poor review (see below).
>
> 2) Defining a mapping between both formats *is* interesting. Other  
> parties have done it before. This is even mentioned in HTML5.  
> There's no reason why another variant of this needs to be in HTML5.
>
> 3) The mapping as currently specified contradicts the Atom  
> specification (RFC 4287) in several aspects. If this Change Proposal  
> does not get applied, the individual problems with the mapping still  
> will need to be fixed. There's a separate Change Proposal ([1])  
> which is focused on fixing some of these issues.
>
>
> DETAILS
>
> Remove all of 4.15.1 ("Atom"). Also remove 4.15 ("Converting HTML to  
> other formats"), which otherwise would be empty.
>
> Note: the removal of this part should be applied to all variants of  
> the spec, be it in W3C space or not. Otherwise, the algorithm will  
> need proper review, and I'd recommend to encourage the members of  
> the atom-syntax mailing list to do that.
>
>
> IMPACT
>
> 1. Positive Effects
>
> Removal of spec text which is believed to be non-essential,  
> controversial, in contradiction with other applicable specs, and  
> potentially buggy.
>
> 2. Negative Effects
>
> None.
>
> 3. Conformance Classes Changes
>
> None (there was non requirement to implement this anyway).
>
> 4. Risks
>
> None.
>
> REFERENCES
>
> [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/ 
> 0291.html>
>
>
Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 08:31:26 GMT

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