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

Re: Null change proposal for ISSUE-31

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:43:36 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <E211FB4D-F9B4-45CB-876E-4CBAAF8292BF@apple.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Jun 23, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> 
>> This change proposal contains objections to the other two change proposals,
>> and such will prove helpful at later stages in the resolution of this issue.
>> 
>> With respect to the objection to Steve's proposal, the following rationale for
>> the current text: 'We need to try having such information as "in your face" as
>> possible. Having additional documents would be additionally helpful, but does
>> not preclude having detailed advice in the HTML spec itself.' does not justify
>> the specific exact text present.
>> 
>> With respect to the objection to Laura's change proposal, this objection does
>> not address each way in which Laura's change proposal differs from the current
>> text.
>> 
>> In all, this change proposal needs to be updated in order to provide rationale
>> for the current text before it can be considered.
> 
> Could you clarify exactly which "current text" it is that needs justifying?


1) Steve's change proposal calls for deleting sections between these two inclusive:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/embedded-content-1.html#a-link-or-button-containing-nothing-but-the-image
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/embedded-content-1.html#an-image-in-an-e-mail-or-private-document-intended-for-a-specific-person-who-is-known-to-be-able-to-view-images

And suggests replacing them with a link to the alt techniques document.

Rationale should be provided for the current text in that range of sections. (Note: to the extent that similar text is at the document at the suggested replacement link, it should be sufficient why it is better to have that particular text inline.)

2) Laura's (first) change proposal suggests replacing the following text with a different set of rules:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#guidance-for-conformance-checkers

Rationale should be provided for the current set of rules in that section.

3) Laura's second change proposal suggests replacing the definition of the img element:

"An img element represents an image. The image given by the src attribute is the embedded content, and the value of the alt attribute is the img element's fallback content."

Rationale should be provided for the current definition.

4) Laura's third change proposal suggests replacements for the same two sections as her other two.

Rationale for those three chunks of text should be sufficient.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 04:44:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:18 UTC