- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 23:35:47 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson On 09-08-09 22.18: > (Please don't cross-post messages to the WHATWG list and another list.) > > On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#fetch >>> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#misinterpreted-for-compatibility >>> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#implied-strong-reference >>> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#other-metadata-names >>> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#microdata >>> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#predefined-type >>> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#obsolete >>> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#the-source-element >>> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#alt >>> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#the-head-element >>> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#navigating-across-documents >>> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#the-bb-element >>> ... >> I agree with those. >> >> Optimally, the "hyperlink auditing" (a/@ping) section should be >> mentioned as well. > > If the idea is to mark up all the issues where someone disagrees, then > there are a number of other sections we should mark, in addition to all > those that have XXX markers in the source already, those that have bugs > filed, and those for which outstanding e-mail feedback is pending: [ snipped list of candidate warnings ] Like Ian, I support publishing both drafts. And like Ian, I would like to have a say regarding both of them. ;-) Regarding Manu's draft, I think it would be better if the warning messages appeared in context. For instance, now there is a warning for the head element, whereas the real issue is one of its attributes - profile. The same can be said about the source element - the issue is with codecs. Confusing readers to think the issue is with <source> as such would not be good. A warning that appears in context is also more likely to be accurate (example the 'blank @alt' warning is currently incorrect/unclear). Also, for the summary warning - there is a separate issue regarding "deprecation" vs "obsolete but conforming" - it doesn't feel right to have "summary" as the "subheader" of the "obsolete features" section. And if the summary warning text also speaks about the summary issue as such [and so it seems], then it belongs just as much under the Table element ... I would therefore suggest changing the current warnings to some kind of standard text - like: This section has a the following warnings about lack of consensus: <a href="#X">attribute X</a> (Serious)<br> <a href="#Y">codec Y</a> (Minor)<br> <a href="#Z">feature Z</a> (Normal). And then each link could lead to an explanation in context. Such a solution could also scale better, if one were to add more warnings ... Could possibly integrate better with the current XXX markers system, as well, and so on. Effectively it would also be a in-document consensus tracker. -- leif h silli
Received on Sunday, 9 August 2009 21:36:30 UTC