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

Re: ISSUE-119 (Certain relationships take on a special meaning when repeated; other solutions may be cleaner)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 02:22:38 -0700
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <CDD22289-F206-4002-B189-B2581E80E708@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Sep 18, 2010, at 1:57 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> this currently says "raised by Julian Reschke", but in fact it was raised by Maciej, based on a Bugzilla issue I did open earlier on.
> 
> That would be a nit, if the description actually expressed my concern. It currently says:
> 
> "...The scope of this issue is to propose approaches for the relation types currently indicated by repetition..."
> 
> No, that's not the scope I had in mind when I opened <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7543>.
> 
> The objective is to restore the old semantics of link relations in general, and "up" specifically, and, to be consistent with other formats that use link relations.
> 
> Finding an alternate solution for the use case for which the new semantics was added is a completely orthogonal problem that should be handled separately.
> 
> Maciej, are you ok with me updating the description accordingly? Otherwise, let's set the "raised by" field to your name.

Feel free to update the description to match your intent.

One question: when you say "restore the old semantics of link relations in general", do you mean every single relation that differs from the definition of HTML4.01 in any way? If so, that seems like a rather broad scope for an issue, and certainly far beyond the scope of bug 7543, which was quite clearly solely about the semantics of a repeated relation name. I tried to make the issue match the bug. If you actually mean specifically the subset of relations where HTML5 defines a specific meaning for repetition, but have a different way of describing it, then that's fine. 

If you want to change the issue to have the broader scope of all link relations, I advise (but do not require) the following steps:

(1) Include an enumeration of all the link relations that you think have changed in semantics and how you believe they have changed, so the WG knows what the issue is actually about.

(2) Add reference to any other bugs about link relations that you believe have changed in meaning.

(3) Consider filing a bug about any difference which hasn't already been reported as a bug. It is possible some of those changes are unintended or otherwise would be changed given a good argument.

In any case, whatever the scope of the issue is, it should be clearly documented.

Thanks,
Maciej
Received on Saturday, 18 September 2010 09:23:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:19 UTC