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

Re: Issue 30 (Was: RE: Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:15:09 -0400
Message-ID: <505BA37D.5020609@intertwingly.net>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 09/20/2012 06:51 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 09/20/2012 05:41 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> Whether or not the top 10,000 web sites home pages is a target market
>>> for longdesc is not relevant to the definition of HTML.  The Web is
>>> not that shallow, and HTML is expected to handle everyone's needs.
>>> I don't know why it is even being considered a rational objection.
>>
>> It is relevant given the details of the proposal being offered:
>>
>> http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld-rendering2.html
>>
>> (Changes are marked with <ZZZ>...</ZZZ>)
>
> I am not seeing the relevance.  Those are examples of how a UA might render
> a longdesc, if such an option were chosen by the user.

Immediately preceding the examples are expectations for UAs.  Including 
in those expectations is presenting the option to the user.

[snip]

> Regardless, I would strenuously object to any conformance requirement,
> on any element or attribute, that is based on what kind of page is
> intended.

The position that a validator should indicate via warnings that a 
particular sequence of markup that it encounters is not one that is 
widely interoperable is one that I would reject out of hand.

That being said, I can see how some would see that as less than 
desirable, and to those people I would suggest that options that lead to 
authoring expectations matching reality would be preferred.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 23:15:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 20 September 2012 23:15:37 GMT