On Aug 24, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Aug 24, 2009, at 6:25 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> Sam Ruby wrote: >>> ... >>> That should be simple. Is there anybody who is *opposed* to >>> HTML5 describing all elements/attributes of previous specs? >>> Ian indicated that he believes that it does. You have pointed >>> out that it does not currently. If we treat these differences as >>> bugs (and add a history section, as you and Anne discussed), is >>> this issue resolved? >> >> Yes! > > Add definition of <meta scheme> <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/ > show_bug.cgi?id=7412> > Add definition of <html profile> <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/ > show_bug.cgi?id=7413> > Please add a history section <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/ > show_bug.cgi?id=7414> > > I believe the editor intends to take action on all of these. Are > any other bugs needed? I don't think that section 12.2 satisfies the issue. What is wrong with defining the elements and attributes where an implementor of "text/html" is going to need to know about them and simply mark those features as deprecated? For example, <a name> has required processing associated with it, so why not just define that under <a>? ....RoyReceived on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 00:46:48 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:54 UTC