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

Re: ISSUE-116: Would a separate document work?

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:26:05 +0200
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100826002605496335.c1879d52@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Sam Ruby, Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:01:46 -0400:
> On 08/25/2010 05:15 PM, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>> HI Sam,
>> 
>> Do any of the other documents you list contain normative content that
>> conflicts with normative content in the HTML5 spec? Or are being
>> developed as replacements for normative requirements in the HTML5 spec?
> 
> Not to my knowledge.

Steven said "other documents". Did you mean to say that Steven's 
document is the only one document which "conflicts with normative 
content" in the "HTML5 A vocabulary" spec?  Or would you rather prefer 
an other word than "conflicts"  such as "extends"?  Or would it be up 
to the "Relevant Index" document to specify the relationship ... or? 
How about http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-in-html/#xmlns--prefixed-attributes 
?

My own view is that the "Relevant Index" document is a good proposal 
because it would raise the attention about the other, relevant 
documents which this group has produced. Getting such attention has the 
potential of solving ISSUE-116. I'm be willing to participate in a 
group that edits such a doc.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2010 22:26:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 August 2010 22:26:48 GMT