- From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:20:34 +0100
- To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Lachlan, I accept the reasoning behind the rationales not being included within this document. also, read my responses to maciej http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/1051.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/1040.html in which i explain that the email i sent (accidently) and was not finished, the quoted text is already a part of the draft. > With this in mind, would you accept the changes I proposed at the end of > my previous mail [1], as a suitable resolution to this issue? Again, see my response to maciej as to what i believe is a suitable solution. On 01/07/07, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote: > Steven Faulkner wrote: > > The rationale for dropping the headers,longdesc and summary attributes > > was presumably formulated by the WHAT WG when the decisions to drop > > these attributes was made. > > As Hixie has tried to explain previously, the rationale for not > including some was because, at the time, there was insufficient research > of the issue and a lack of evidence to support their inclusion. > > > I would like to see the rationale formally recorded in the differences > > document > > The purpose of the document is to describe the differences between HTML > 4.01 and the current state of HTML5, in order assist in the discovery of > what has been changed. While outlining the current state of affairs and > giving a brief overview of known outstanding issues is helpful, > explaining why certain changes have or have not yet been made with > detailed rationale is well beyond the scope of the document. > > I am adamant that the document must represent a neutral point of view on > all issues. Mentioning that there are open issues and listing a few of > them in an objective way is fine, but attempting to rationalise issues, > especially controversial issues, seriously risks affecting its neutrality. > > In fact, there appears to be cases where the document isn't as neutral > as it should be. e.g. > > | The following elements have been removed because they have not been > | used often, created confusion or can be handled by other elements: > | > | * acronym is not included because it has created lots of confusion. > | Authors are to use abbr for abbreviations. > > Saying that it created confusion only represents one side of the issue. > There are some people who believe both acronym and abbr should be > included and are clearly distinct. There are others that believe both > should be allowed and defined synonymously. There are probably others > that believe acronym should be chosen over abbr because it has better > support in IE. In order to remain as neutral as possible, I recommend > changing that text to the following: > > * acronym is considered redundant in favour of abbr. > > > in > > "3.6. Dropped Attributes" > > the text > > "Some attributes from HTML 4 are no longer allowed in HTML 5" > > I'm not sure how that proposed text addresses your issue at all. In > fact, it seems to make it worse because you're objection is based on > your opinion that several of those features should be allowed and the > lack of rationale for why they aren't. > > With this in mind, would you accept the changes I proposed at the end of > my previous mail [1], as a suitable resolution to this issue? > > [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/46855A2E.7060908@lachy.id.au > > -- > Lachlan Hunt > http://lachy.id.au/ > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2007 12:20:37 UTC