- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:19:46 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 08.04.2010 20:12, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >> On Apr 8, 2010, at 5:09 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >>> Also, it's not clear *at all* whether this is a feature that people >>> really want, and if they do, whether it needs to be part of HTML5. >>> Given the fact that it's non-trivial to generate a valid Atom feed >>> from HTML, but the reverse *is* trivial, we should also consider >>> removing this feature altogether (I'd be happy to write a 2nd change >>> proposal if people want to see that as well). (See [2]) >> >> Since a number of people have expressed interest, I think it would be >> helpful to provide a second proposal along these lines. > > Sure. Here it is: > > SUMMARY > > The HTML5 spec contains an algorithm for producing an Atom (RFC4287) feed > document from an HTML page. > > There are many problems with this, summarized under RATIONALE. > > This Change Proposal removes the complete section defining this algorithm. > > RATIONALE > > The are multiple problems with the algorithm for Atom generation: > > 1) It's not clear that a sufficient amount of people is interested in this. > HTML pages that would be candidates for this usually are generated from a > different source, like an article database, or even a feed document. > Therefore, providing both simply is not a problem for the author. Defining a > feature that is of little use increases the spec size (more to review) and > the risk of getting things wrong because of poor review (see below). > > 2) Defining a mapping between both formats *is* interesting. Other parties > have done it before. This is even mentioned in HTML5. There's no reason why > another variant of this needs to be in HTML5. > > 3) The mapping as currently specified contradicts the Atom specification > (RFC 4287) in several aspects. If this Change Proposal does not get applied, > the individual problems with the mapping still will need to be fixed. > There's a separate Change Proposal ([1]) which is focused on fixing some of > these issues. > > > DETAILS > > Remove all of 4.15.1 ("Atom"). Also remove 4.15 ("Converting HTML to other > formats"), which otherwise would be empty. > > Note: the removal of this part should be applied to all variants of the > spec, be it in W3C space or not. Otherwise, the algorithm will need proper > review, and I'd recommend to encourage the members of the atom-syntax > mailing list to do that. > > > IMPACT > > 1. Positive Effects > > Removal of spec text which is believed to be non-essential, controversial, > in contradiction with other applicable specs, and potentially buggy. > > 2. Negative Effects > > None. > > 3. Conformance Classes Changes > > None (there was non requirement to implement this anyway). > > 4. Risks > > None. > > REFERENCES > > [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/0291.html> > > > I support this proposal. Shelley
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 18:20:19 UTC