- From: Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:22:06 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Julian wrote: > Also, it's not clear *at all* whether this is a feature that people > really want It's a feature I really want. I'd like to simply publish semantic HTML and have software produce whatever other formats I need from the HTML that I write. I've scribbled some thoughts on this on my blog: http://edward.oconnor.cx/2010/04/html-to-atom > and if they do, whether it needs to be part of HTML5. I'm not sure if anything at all "needs to be part of HTML5." It's our job as a WG to figure out what bits we want in, and what we want out. This is an example of a bit I think is appropriate to include. Sam wrote: > Given that discussion has died down, and that this proposal has gotten > several indications of support and (as of yet) no objections, at this time I > would like anybody in the Working Group that has reason to object to this > item to state so now. I'm not quite sure which point you're fishing for objections to. ISSUE-86 says "Either just reference the requirement in the base spec, or make it a MUST." I don't think it's reasonable to require a MUST, as there are conceivably many circumstances in which it's impossible to generate a stable ID. That said, I would prefer the algorithm remain in the spec. I'm all for the algorithm being improved wherever possible. Ted
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2010 22:22:58 UTC