- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 22:57:35 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21894 Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > This seems to add complication for no real benefit. > > > > The Task Force resolved to close the bug wontfix on 2013-05-16 > > I am constantly told that ‘the task force decided’ so and so. That > information feels like some kind of pressure. There is no intent to use this as pressure. The HTML Accessibility Task Force produces this specification on behalf of the HTML and PF working groups, and so that is where decisions are made on issues and bugs. > I would like to hear technical or otherwise sound arguments > that I can accept or not. The minutes of all meetings are public. The discussion in this case was in the email thread starting at The argument was that this change is an unnecesasry complication - longdesc is an actual link, that goes to a URL. The cite attribute was not defined that way in HTML4 (probably a mistake at the time). > The benefit of resolving this bug should be obvious. Namely: it brings the > language of this HTML5 extension in line with the language of the HTML5 > specification. The bug did not show why the language was not already in line with the specification, and in particular with the > My understanding is that the ultimate goal is to, at some point, make this > spec part of the HTML5 (or HTML 5.1 or HTML6) specification. To ease that > transition, it would be an advantage to use the same language as HTML5 uses. It is undecided whether this spec will proceed to Recommendation alone, or as part of an HTML specification. That is stated explicitly in the section "Status of this document". The specification refers to the HTML specification to define what a hyperlink is, and what a URL is. The algorithm for "following a link" as specified in HTML can be followed with the information in this specification. If the specification is integrated into the HTML specification, then yes, part of the work of integration may well involve extending the definitions provided to include a "longdesc" type of link, and noting that a longdesc attribute can also create a link. But until such a decision is made, that is a hypothetical problem that is part of the editorial work of integrating two specifications. > Otherwise, it is unclear to me, whether you, at that point, would like > redefine HTML5/HTML51/HTML6’s definition of hyperlink. It doesn't seem necessary to do so. Obviously, the hyperlink defined here is not a "link defined by an a or area element". However, the definitions of hyperlinks and following hyperlinks are sufficient for the purposes of the specification. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 22:57:40 UTC