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

> Let me know what you think of the new set of objective criteria for 
> determining whether a warning should be publicly visible in the HTML 
> WG draft.

The name "Warning" here and the use of that red is inflamatory. In the 
hierarchy of technical communications, I believe Warning traditionally 
means chance or certainty of actual physical hazard to someone or 
maybe something.materially important. The idea is that there is a 
physical danger. Thus, in this specification I can't imagine seeing a 
real Warning notice. I think these are more like annotations, and 
really, if used, it needs a placard or icon along with it that better 
conveys the idea that it is not dangerous to read any part of the 
standard. ,

Maybe I should read up some more (links welcome) and usually I might 
expect to see 'normative' content (required) and 'informative' content 
(examples). I usually see examples as "informative' content when at a 
stage where, well, the examples may not be of the certain quality and 
robustness of the 'normative' content, or just to make clear that the 
example is not the only way to do it.

This added content is of an entirely different type. I would name it 
'critical' content because the info is offered as informed and well 
intentioned and even offically-endorsed commentary on the official 
state of the current 'normative' and 'informative' content. Every one 
of these items must be backed up by bugs/issues/status, etc. so the 
reader is rewarded by being able to track the issue details and 
identify current alternatives, and maybe even form an opinion and 
maybe make a vote.

But more deeply I think of this project as an HTML application to 
improve the standard that needs some development work (proof of no 
unintended whatevers) before it gets plugged in tighly and shown to 
the public. Clearly this task is also the overall responsibliity of 
Ian, because he is responsible for the golden keystrokes. I do think 
there should be another one or more 'critical' editors that carefully 
plug into the published document.

So Manu, I think this project First needs to be able to show a nice 
presentation of only this critical content, like all by itself in a 
form representative of what it will look like when used with the spec 
layout. Then, finish development of how to actually offer it to the 
user as the spec is being used for doing HTML browser implementations 
or authoring. Finally, when this important application of HTML is 
ready to show to the public without distraction from the main points 
of providing absolutely clear technically complete and accurate 
normative content along with  state-of-the-art informative content 
then let's publish it.
My vote: a promising connection but not ready for the public at this 

Thanks for this important  initiative. With connection to preexisting 
knowledge bases and an organized secure and timely linkage between 
basic WG process documents and tools, this can be a great contribution 
to somebody understnding the current best 'official' added or 
alternative techniques or opinions at any current or historical point. 
I think this is a new class of editorship that does not currently 
imply any actual access to the current normative and informative 
components of the standard.

Again, thanks to all contributors to this important work, and I have 
confidence this is already showing to be potentially a strong tool if 
maintained meaningfully now and as it develops, but just don't think 
it is quite ready for introduction at this Important initial draft. If 
it shows to be of great value within the WG(s), as I think it may due 
to its great potential, then fine, it may well be of use to the 
interested public outside the related WG.

What do I do to get bug 7075 into this process?

Thanks to All and Best Regards,

Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 18:26:36 UTC