- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 07:42:47 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: >> If John removes his objection, and nobody else comes forward, then there >> will be no remaining options, and therefore no poll. If he does not, >> there are two options: >> >> 1) Publish with @summary marked as obsolete >> 2) Publish with @summary marked as deprecated > > Given the recent confusion over what those terms mean (in particular, > given that the HTML5 spec uses the word "obsolete" in a manner that is > distinct from the way that HTML4 uses both "obsolete" and "deprecated"), > it would be useful if such a poll defined the terms so that there is no > ambiguity about what the decision actually is. > > (As an editor, I'd have no idea what to do given as a resolution either > "mark summary as obsolete" or "mark summary as deprecated". As far as I > can tell, HTML5 could be argued to do both already.) It is indeed a problem that the current draft does not precisely specify what these terms mean in a way anywhere near as clearly as HTML 4 did. However for purposes of this poll, that will not be an issue. I will confirm that John Foliot has made available an updated draft and sent a pointer to it to you, me, and Mike, along with a concise list of differences. Ian, check your mail for an message with a Message-ID of <014f01ca134f$d127a1a0$7376e4e0$@edu>. Given this information, there should be absolutely no confusion over what the poll is about. > Cheers, - Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 11:43:26 UTC