- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:44:09 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Feb 15, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> Some people have discouraged the idea of creating more components >> because it would break people's existing tools. If others consider >> it important for clarity, then we can create new components (or >> some other distinguishing feature, such as keywords). > > I think new components would be good, but keywords as workaround > might work as well. I'm a little wary of changing our set of components because it seems to break things when we do it. The alternatives I thought of: - Add keywords "Microdata" and "2DContext"; this would require bug reporters to be aware, and would require volunteers to review existing open bugs. - Adopt an informal convention to prefix the titles of bugs in these areas with "[microdata]" or "[2d context]" as appropriate. The title convention is probably less work for bug reporters, but there's still a potential for mistakes. I think we do need some way to track these bugs separately if we want to consider the possibility that these three drafts might go to Last Call or Candidate Rec at different times. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2010 07:44:43 UTC