W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2012

Re: ISSUE-194

From: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 11:21:06 -0700
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <m2y5n2f2i5.fsf@eoconnor.apple.com>
Hi Maciej,

You wrote:

>> It seems to me that the two transcript attribute proposals are now
>> much closer than our original starting point. They are intended to
>> meet the same requirements and satisfy the same use cases, and have
>> pretty similar syntax and usage.


>> [N]either provides direct rationale for why its form of the
>> transcript attribute is different from the others. They focus more on
>> why transcript support is useful at all, and on comparing to
>> proposals no longer on the table.
>> I think it would improve both proposals if they gave rationale for
>> why their form of the transcript attribute is better than the other.

I will update the text of my proposal along such lines.

Silvia wrote:

> I've still got a TODO to improve the TranscriptURL proposal with some
> language that compares it to the IDREFs proposal with
> advantages/disadvantages. […] You can expect something before the end
> of the week.

I'll aim to have my updates done by the end of the week as well.

Received on Monday, 2 July 2012 18:21:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:24 UTC