W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2010

Re: change proposal: Specification of authoring conformance requirments in HTML5

From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:58:55 +0100
Message-ID: <4C6A5D5F.5010204@cfit.ie>
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On 17/08/2010 10:09, Steven Faulkner wrote:
> Hi all, the editor rejected the bug:
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9845
>> "Status: Rejected
>> Change Description: no spec change
>> Rationale: It would be inappropriate for us to link to all the many
>> information
>> documents that people are going to write about HTML5. For example, we
>> similarly
>> don't link to Mike's document or Lachlan's document. Only the most
>> high-profile
>> of such documents are referenced, in a section on "Recommended Reading".:
> The stated rationale for the rejection is disingenuous as the editor is well
> aware [1] that 'HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives 'is
> a specification that provides an alternative set of normative authoring
> requirments for the use of alt in HTML5 and that it IS NOT a just an
> informative document 'about HTML5'. I do not consider that it will be
> fruitful to re-open the bug as the editor is clearly not interested in
> providing sound reasons for his response.
> I have therefore created a change proposal
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/altspecification

In principle, +1 to the Change Proposal. Until at least the 'tower of 
spec Babel' is resolved.

However, the wording is a little confusing, the differences between the 
two sets of author conformance requirements should be clearer. For example,

"This specification is an extension to the HTML5 specification [HTML5]. 
All normative content in the HTML5 specification, unless specifically 
overridden by this specification, is intended to be the basis for this 
specification" is difficult to parse.

It may be the overuse of 'specification' and 'specifically overriding' 
one spec by another.

I suggest simplifying it to something like:

"This document is an extension to the HTML5 specification [HTML5]. All 
content in the HTML5 specification, unless explicitly overridden by this 
document, is intended to be normative"

Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 09:59:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 August 2010 09:59:32 GMT