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

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:26 PM, James Graham<> wrote:
> Quoting James Graham <>:
>> To meet the goal of informing readers of the spec about the likely
>> stability of different sections, we are much better off adding
>> informative annotations to each section that describe the stability of
>> that section using criteria such as whether the feature is supported in
>> released user agents. Such annotations would be both positive "Ships in
>> multiple UAs; likely to be stable" and negative "Unimplemented, likely
>> subject to change or removal". It is notable that the WHATWG draft
>> already has a system for doing this based on user-supplied information.
>> It would not (I expect) be a technical challenge to statically add
>> those annotations to the W3C version of the spec.
> Indeed it turned out that this was not a significant technical challenge; I
> added a simple feature to anolis that allows reading annotations from a file
> in a format compatible with the WHATWG annotation system and adding them
> statically to the generated spec. I have not added this feature to
> yet but will in due course.
> A copy of the spec with the WHATWG annotations in is at [1] (that URL is not
> expected to be long-lasting). Note how this document makes the relative
> maturity of the <iframe> ("working draft") and <video> ("last call for
> comments") sections clear. I understand that some people will think that
> reusing W3C language is inappropriate; that can be changed. Please bear in
> mind that this document may contain errors since my spec-processing pipeline
> is immature; indeed I spotted some encoding issues already.

Wow, this is great! I'd say I'd even prefer even more attention to the
status annotations, i.e. give them a border or something else to make
them stand out.

/ Jonas

Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 22:14:16 UTC