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

Sam Ruby wrote:
> So... the questions I would like to pose to the group is:
> (1) Would there be benefit to the development and publishing of an
> overview document for HTML5?
> (2) Is there somebody (or perhaps a group of people) willing to produce
> such a document?
> (3) Would the existence of such a document satisfy everybody's needs,
> i.e., if it were to exist and get past FPWD could we then close
> ISSUE-166 by amicable resolution?

As noted, the current HTML WG web page lists, as one of the 'other'
documents the existence of: 

However, inside the actual HTML5 Editor Draft exists contradictory
guidance (*). If that text were to be removed and split into a separate
(alternative) document then yes, sure. However as it stands now this is
not the case.

(* In particular, many feel these examples are out-right wrong:

alt="The network
passes data to the Tokenizer stage, which passes data to the Tree
Construction stage. From there, data goes to both the DOM and to
Script Execution. Script Execution is linked to the DOM, and, using
document.write(), passes data to the Tokenizer."></p>"

	" <img src="KDE%20Light%20desktop.png" alt="The desktop is blue,
with icons along the left hand side in
           two columns, reading System, Home, K-Mail, etc. A window is
           open showing that menus wrap to a second line if they
           cannot fit in the window. The window has a list of icons
           along the top, with an address bar below it, a list of
           icons for tabs along the left edge, a status bar on the
           bottom, and two panes in the middle. The desktop has a bar
           at the bottom of the screen with a few buttons, a pager, a
           list of open applications, and a clock.">"

...both being *way* too verbose for @alt text. They would make decent Long
Descriptions though.)

So a conditional yes to fully moving guidance to an external reference
coupled with an over-view document, but coupled with removal of existing
guidance in the Draft Spec.


Related to:
	Issue-30 (Formal Objection(s)) 

Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 02:18:50 UTC