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

(unknown charset) Re: "image analysis heuristics" (ISSUE-66)

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 03:10:09 +0100
To: (unknown charset) Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: (unknown charset) Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100209031009127605.f5db4fa4@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Ian Hickson, Tue, 9 Feb 2010 00:38:35 +0000 (UTC):
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Steven Faulkner wrote:

>> linking to them inline would be a good idea 
>> rather than providing incomplete or inadequate advice or no advice.
> 
> Do you have any supporting arguments for this claim?

To be "providing incomplete or inadequate advice" is bad. Period. 

Exception: The advice is clear about its incompleteness. The text of a 
hypertext link is clear about its incompleteness ... that's why it 
points away ... 

   [...]
> I would be happy to participate in constructive discussion as to what 
> suitable advice should be, *based on researched data and reasoning*.

A link is also a form of advice, and Steven's argument is that it is 
suitable.

The problem with restating something - in HTML5 - which is ultimately 
governed by another spec, is that we could land in problems about where 
the authoritative truth is supposed to be found.

I think that if you would provide a link to the authoritative spec, 
inside the current text, then you would already have taken a step in 
the right direction.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2010 02:10:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:14 UTC