- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:36:34 +0100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > ... > Thanks. > > Nits: > > "The working groups maintains a list of all bug reports that the editor > has not yet tried to address and a list of issues for which the chairs > have not yet declared a decision. The editor also maintains a list of > all e-mails that he has not yet tried to address. These bugs, issues, > and e-mails apply to all HTML specifications, not just this one." > > The first link > > a list of all bug reports that the editor has not yet tried to address > > produces zero results, so it appears something is wrong with the query > part. > ... This is not fixed. Should I open a bug report? > "These bugs, issues, and e-mails apply to all HTML specifications, not > just this one." > > s/HTML specifications/specification/ > > unless we want to discuss what exactly an "HTML specification" is :-) This is not fixed. Should I open a bug report? > Also, if we include links to BugZilla queries in the first place, why > not make them specific to this draft? > > Finally, more alignment with the sister specification (RDFa) would be > good. It currently has: > > "The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft does > not imply endorsement by the W3C HTML Working Group or the W3C as a > whole. In particular, > > * There are one or more alternate methods of adding data without > using RDFa, such as [microdata]. > * There are discussions of alternate extensibility mechanisms, > covered in [issue-41], which might allow other ways of integrating RDFa. > * There is concern that continued development of this document > belongs in a different working group." > > which I think is very helpful in understanding the status of these > documents. > ... Raised as <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9001>. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 15 February 2010 11:37:16 UTC