Re: some thoughts on objections to publishing ""HTML 5 differences from HTML 4"

On Sat, 2007-06-30 at 06:26 +0100, Steven Faulkner wrote:
> >That seems like way too much attention to a single open issue in the spec.
> 
> 1. it is not only one, but a number of open issues.
> 2. the style attribute issue is mentioned explictly, so why not the
> the headers, longdesc and summary?

Yes, for all the discussion we've had, it seems worthwhile to
elaborate the "Details of accessibility and media-independence features"
bullet to mention those explicitly.

Anne, please do.

Also, I see in IRC that you're considering changing "Dropped"
to "Omitted" or some such, but waiting to sync with me. That
change is OK by me... or even better if you can find
something like "in one but not the other" that doesn't
imply that somebody decided to omit it.

> > > That a sentence be inserted in 3.6. Dropped Attributes
> > >
> > > "Note: The decision to drop of some of the attributes in this section
> > > is currently being debated by the working group. As a consequence one
> > > or more may be allowed in HTML 5"

I think that isn't a significant improvement over
disclaimers elsewhere in the document (e.g. in the status section).

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Monday, 2 July 2007 21:32:29 UTC