W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2016

Re: CFC on referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension

From: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:18:02 +0100
To: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <f188e19b-4412-7c7c-c5fd-903aeefa0619@tink.uk>
On 11/08/2016 21:31, Edward O'Connor wrote:
> Hi Léonie,


Hello Ted. Good to have your input on this, thanks.

>
> You wrote:
>
>> 3. Keep the longdesc examples in HTML core **.
>
> This doesn't make sense to me. When we moved Microdata into its own spec
> because people objected to it being in HTML 5, we also removed Microdata
> from the examples in the HTML spec (e.g.
> <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18726>). Also, in
> general, including features defined in extensions in examples in the
> core spec strikes me as bad layering.
>

At the moment there is no real consistency in the way we reference specs 
(applicable or otherwise) from HTML. My hope is that over the next few 
months the WG will be able to discuss and agree on definitions for 
modules (as opposed to extensions), and a method for referencing 
either/both of those things. The idea being that we'd then be able to 
start putting that plan into action across HTML.

In the meantime the hope is that by removing all the normative 
references and leaving only informative examples, we can find a 
consensus that will see us through until the WG has consensus around 
modularisation/extension handling etc. (and enough active contributors 
to make it happen).

Léonie.


-- 
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
Received on Friday, 12 August 2016 10:18:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 12 August 2016 10:18:42 UTC