Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD

Julian Reschke wrote:
> So the remaining problems I see are the use of the term "URL", and the
> fact that the "WEBADDRESSES" reference leads nowhere.
> A more accurate warning might be:
> "This section normatively refers to a 'Web Addresses' specification that
> is work-in-progress; also, usage of the term 'URL' for things that are
> not URLs as defined in RFC 3986 remains controversial."

Thanks Julian, I will replace that language tonight, as it is more accurate.

>>> Optimally, the "hyperlink auditing" (a/@ping) section should be
>>> mentioned as well.
>> I'd be happy to mark this section as controversial as long as there is
>> an explanation or discussion related to why that section should be
>> marked. I don't necessarily see the issue with the @ping feature at
>> first glance, so I wouldn't feel good marking it as controversial
>> without understanding why it is controversial.
>> ...
> This is actually issue *1* :-), see
> <>.

Holy perma-thread, Batman. You've convinced me.

It's going to take me a while to go through:

Currently, I intend to mark the "Hyperlink auditing" section as
controversial in the heartbeat WD after this one. The only thing that
could stop the warning language is if it's clear, after reviewing the
very long thread of discussion relating to "Hyperlink auditing", that
there is a widely-understood solution or compromise.

I'm reluctant to add items and would like to focus on removals of
warning language for this poll. Is this acceptable to you, Julian?

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny) (twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce

Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 17:39:36 UTC