- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:10:36 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24605 Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rubys@intertwingly.net --- Comment #6 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> --- (In reply to David Carlisle from comment #4) > (In reply to Leif Halvard Silli from comment #3) > > (In reply to David Carlisle from comment #2) > > > I think that this is far too far from the main aim of the polyglot spec of > > > XML/HTML compatibility, so I would argue that it should not be recommended > > > in this spec, even if I agreed with the recommendation. > > > > Understand what you say. At the same time, Sam has been making the argument, > > repeatedly, that attributes directly on element are more robust than CSS. > > There are places to make that argument (which actually I don't disagree with) > but not in this spec. I don't recognize the argument that is being attributed to me, but in any case, I agree that this is not the place to make recommendations that go beyond the scope of making documents that work equally as well in both XML and HTML contexts. HTML5 and HTML 5.1 should take a position on whether the border attribute is recommended, valid, or invalid, and polyglot should follow. Either that or there should be a separate extension specification for the boarder attribute. I recoginize that Mike is trying to overturn a previous WG decision -- I'll stay out of that discussion until the editors have proposed a resolution: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24591 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 15:10:39 UTC