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

Re: Extension spec for hgroup (Was: Re: Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014)

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:45:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+ri+VmD_ekPACsT2xixK5nw4f-Mm+WTnV752JmZHe5N5oJfoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "w3c-wai-pf@w3.org" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Sam,

> For completeness, let me ask a follow-on question.  If we got consensus on
> such a specification, would you agree that the result would be a suitable
> base upon which to build both hgroup and hgroup alternatives via extension
> specifications?

My position is that hgroup should be removed from HTML5 and be non conforming

I will write extensions for oultinemask and subline.

someone may  come forward and write an extension spec for hgroup it
then can be dealt with as per the plan for extensions.

someone may  come forward and write an extension spec for some other
feature, it then can be dealt with as per the plan for extensions.

this creates a level playing field for the competing features.

regards
SteveF


On 20 September 2012 23:46, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 09/20/2012 05:23 PM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sam,
>>
>>> So my question to you is: could you live with adding this back in?  If
>>> not, why not?
>>
>>
>> OK I got you now, I would happily add back in any references to hgroup
>> that are expected for continuing parsing support in browsers, it was
>> not my intention to remove this.
>
>
> For completeness, let me ask a follow-on question.  If we got consensus on
> such a specification, would you agree that the result would be a suitable
> base upon which to build both hgroup and hgroup alternatives via extension
> specifications?
>
>
>> regards
>> SteveF
>
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>> On 20 September 2012 23:18, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/20/2012 04:39 PM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Sam,
>>>>
>>>>> This may lead to an unusual place: a name that has parsing behavior but
>>>>> is not allowed to be used.  This may be unusual but not unprecedented.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am I missing something here or are there not quite a few elements and
>>>> attributes [1] that have parsing behaviour but are not allowed to be
>>>> used?
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I can parse that question it two different ways.  Forgive me if I chose
>>> to
>>> answer the one that I want. :-)
>>>
>>> You are indeed missing something, hgroup does not appear in the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> http://www.html5accessibility.com/HTML5extensions/HTML5.html#interfaces
>>>
>>> So my question to you is: could you live with adding this back in?  If
>>> not,
>>> why not?
>>>
>>> My question to everybody else is: would the resulting draft match what we
>>> would expect if the portions of hgroup that are "at risk" were removed?
>>> If
>>> not, what else should be added back in?
>>>
>>> If we can agree on this, perhaps we can expedite this by asking Steve to
>>> produce a github pull request (I can talk you through it Steve if
>>> necessary)
>>> and to issue a CfC on this matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>> regards
>>>> SteveF
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 07:47:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 07:47:14 GMT