- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:15:58 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
On Aug 25, 2009, at 1:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> On Aug 24, 2009, at 6:37 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >>> 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? >>> >>> Looks like <a name>: >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1242.html >> Right now I'm not clear enough on what info Roy thinks should be >> added to file it as a bug, but I will gladly do so if we can >> clarify the desired change through further discussion. > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7422 This bug doesn't look accurate to me, because the name attribute on a elements is in fact listed as an obsolete feature. Specifically, <a name> is obsolete but conforming when the value of the name attribute is non-empty, and obsolete and nonconforming when the value of the name attribute is empty. The spec also says: "Authors should not specify the name attribute on a elements. If the attribute is present, its value must not be the empty string. In earlier versions of the language, this attribute served a similar role as the id attribute. The id attribute should be used instead." That's why I wasn't sure what more Roy thought should be added. (Also commented in the bug to that effect.) Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 08:16:39 UTC