W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: NEW DRAFT: HTML5-warnings - now with consistent warnings

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:06:20 +0000 (UTC)
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0908140858520.28566@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Manu Sporny wrote:
> I have updated the HTML5-warnings draft that I intend to publish (if the 
> poll deems that it should be published) by applying Maciej's 3 
> consistency rules along with one additional criteria (for external spec 
> violations). The set of consistency rules can be found in this e-mail:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0550.html
> This has resulted in a consistent set of warnings, based on applying the 
> set of rules outlined above.

Are these the criteria in question?:

| 1) The issue was raised at least four months ago, by one of email,
|    bugzilla or the issue tracker.
| 2) There has been no mutually satisfactory outcome (the issue has not
|    been closed).
| OR
| 3) Any HTML WG member can raise an issue on conflicts between the HTML5
|    spec and specs external to the HTML WG. External spec conflicts
|    should be communicated to the public (ie: marked up in section
|    warnings) immediately.

> Each warning can be traced to an unresolved tracker issue that is more 
> than 4 months old, a perma-thread conversation (more than 100 messages 
> long) that is more than 4 months old, or is a clear violation of another 
> Internet standard:
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#editor-s-draft-date-14-August-2009 
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#urls 
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#fetch 
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#misinterpreted-for-compatibility 
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#navigating-across-documents 
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#microdata 
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#obsolete 
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#the-source-element 
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#alt 
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-draft2-diff.html#the-head-element

This doesn't seem to be an exhaustive list of the issues that match those 
criteria... are there other criteria being applied also?

For example, most if not all of the issues I list in this e-mail:


...fit the above criteria, yet none are listed.

I would also like to reiterate what Maciej wrote:

| I would also add that simply linking the issues and citing their text  
| from the tracker would be less opinionated than restating the issues  
| in your own [words].
 -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0691.html

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 09:06:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:53 UTC