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

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
>>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 21:47:12 UTC