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

Re: Alternate proposal for ISSUE-30 longdesc

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:28:18 -0500
Message-ID: <4B82F6F2.6050805@intertwingly.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> bgcolor was deprecated in HTML4.01, "Deprecated" being the closest 
>>> status HTML4.01 had to HTML5's "Obsolete but conforming". So my 
>>> proposal would actually treat longdesc the exact same way we have 
>>> treated bgcolor, just one spec cycle behind.
>> <co-chair hat off>
>> The notion that HTML5 introduces of "Obsolete but conforming" should 
>> be revisited.
> <hat doffed to you too>
> I'm not necessarily against revisiting that notion, but I'd rather keep 
> that out of my Change Proposal (and preferably out of this particular 
> issue in general).

<co-chair hat on>

I see Shelley has opened a bug report: 9122.

I believe that eliminating that controversial and confusing aspect of 
the language has a distinct possibility of unblocking progress on a 
number of issues, including 4, 30, 32, and 55.

In particular, there was once a widespread assumption that everything 
that one needed to know was contained in one spec.  As things have split 
over time to other specs (Microdata, Canvas 2D API) other working groups 
(WebApps), and even other venues (IETF), I feel that this notion merits 
revisiting.  I note with great pleasure the leadership that Manu, 
Tantek, and Julian have taken with issue 55:


Chaals: would you consider recasting your change proposal in a way that 
makes it a separate document?


> Regards,
> Maciej

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 21:28:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:58 UTC