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

Re: ISSUE-200: legend-placement - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:59:02 -0700
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <m2zk7lmzzt.fsf@eoconnor.apple.com>
Hi all,

Sam wrote:

> The Keep proposal is acceptable as is, but could benefit by addressing
> the feedback that has already been provided on list[2].

OK. I've tweaked my Change Proposal based on that email.

Marat wrote, in response to my ISSUE-200 CP[1]:

>> The <fieldset> and <legend> author conformance criteria present in
>> the specification help authors to correctly use these elements and
>> should not be loosened.
>
> "Helping" and "correctness" are unconstructive abstractions.

Reworded.

>> No use cases have been provided to justify changing the status quo.
>
> Not. Multiple usecases _have been_ provided in both original bug 12834
> [1] and proposal [2]. See:
> http://tanalin.com/_experimentz/bugs/w3/html/wrap-legend/

As the editor explained in [2], these test cases are not use cases. I
have not changed my proposal based on this feedback.

>> Change proposal for LEGEND element suggests we mint a new <ilegend>
>> element, identical in semantics to <legend> but free from <legend>'s
>> compatibility constraints. Having multiple elements with identical
>> semantics balloons the size of HTML's vocabulary and should be
>> avoided unless there are compelling reasons for each element.
>
> Such "ballooning" is not a significant issue at all. There _are_
> compelling reason: existing LEGEND element is not styleable as it's
> needed by real-world web development.

Styling deficiencies are not a good reason to add an element to HTML—but
they *are* good input into how we can improve CSS to better handle the
sorts of effects you'd like to achieve. Any deficiencies in the
styleability of <legend> should be taken up with the CSS Working Group.
I have not changed my proposal based on this feedback.

>> For instance, when designing <figure>, we minted <figcaption> (instead
>> of reusing <summary> or <legend> within <figure>) due to the legacy
>> parsing behavior of <summary> and the legacy rendering behavior of
>> <legend>. But this was to enable the various use cases addressed by
>> <figure>.
>
> "various use cases" is an unconstructive abstraction.

I don't see why a change proposal about <legend> would need to restate
the use cases that gave rise to <figure>. The public-html and whatwg
mailing list archives are public and searchable. I have not changed my
proposal based on this feedback.

Paul wrote:

> Due to the large number of outstanding HTML WG actions that Ted is
> working on, the Chairs have agreed that Ted has until 6th of July to
> modify his change proposal [1] for ISSUE-200.

I've updated the proposal as requested.


Thanks,
Ted

1. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-200
2. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12834#c25
Received on Friday, 29 June 2012 23:59:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 29 June 2012 23:59:30 GMT