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

(unknown charset) Re: "Controlled environments" in scope for HTML working group

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:21:19 +0100
To: (unknown charset) Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Cc: (unknown charset) Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100105152119170589.f37a24c5@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Adam Barth, Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:12:09 -0800:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> I'm not convinced that the distinction makes a lot of sense. For instance,
>> an enterprise portal might be a "controlled environment". Is it on the
>> public web? If I can access it from outside the firewall, behind a login
>> mechanism? Yes? No? How is this different from pages on Amazon or my bank
>> that require login?
> 
> Larry's change proposal draws a distinction.  If the distinction
> doesn't make sense, it might be useful for him to clarify this
> proposal.

ISO does not recommend using the ISO date/time notation for points in 
time 
before the Gregorian calendar was introduced.  The exception being: 
private agreements. This has impact on the @datetime attribute.

I think that when it comes to HTML and the public and private Web, then 
we should think the opposite way: The Web standards always applies, 
except when, through private agreement, someone agree that they don't 
matter to them. 

When I went to school in the Stone Age 1970-ties and 1980-ties, we 
learned to write letters, including private letters: How to open and 
end a letter, whether you write "you" or "You" and other choices of 
style etc. So, that something is "private", doesn't mean that the 
standard followed is private - it probably isn't!

Thus, if you invite someone to log into a banking system, then your 
customers will expect that the standard adherence inside the system is 
at least not of a lower degree than outside, in the public Web - unless 
you make them accept another standard before entering inside.

The HTML 5 draft touches this subject when it talks about e-mail and 
the alt attribute:

]]
4.8.2.1.11 An image in an e-mail or private document intended for a 
specific person who is known to be able to view images.

This section does not apply to documents that are publicly accessible, 
or whose target audience is not necessarily personally known to the 
author, such as documents on a Web site, e-mails sent to public mailing 
lists, or software documentation.  

When an image is included in a private communication (such as an HTML 
e-mail) aimed at a specific person who is known to be able to view 
images, thealtp183 attribute may be omitted. However, even in such 
cases it is strongly recommended that alternative text be included (as 
appropriate according to the kind of image involved, as described in 
the above entries), so that the e-mail is still usable should the user 
use a mail client that does not support images, or should the document 
be forwarded on to other users whose abilities might not include easily 
seeing images.
[[

Except that there is no direct talk about "private agreement" here. 

Like others, I don't understand why HTML 5 should say anything about 
what 
two persons exchanging e-mail may agree about ... Especially not in 
light of the claims that HTML 5 shouldn't care about the non-public Web.

If HTML 5's requirement to specify @alt does not qualify to be what 
Maciej called an "opportunistic benefit" [1] for any controlled 
environment, then that seems like a problem for those who agree to not 
follow HTML 5 - not something HTML 5 should occupy itself with.

I think one of Larry's points was that if we look squarely only at the 
public Web, then we may hurt the public Web itself. And I think think 
the private e-mail example demonstrates this: Suddenly the e-mail 
message is out of the box, out on the public Web.

When it comes to doctypes, then I think the issue is that if one uses a 
doctype which indicates that one has followed the HTML 5 standard, 
despite not using the canonical <!doctype html>, then that shouldn't 
count as breaking the HTML 5 standard.

[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/4210F9C1-9A97-40B7-9334-D3963E640706@apple.com
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 14:21:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:57 GMT