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

Re: <iframe doc="">

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 22:55:49 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001162055k2d655449t5baaed783a537c27@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2010, at 5:05 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I'd really like to see a more formal change proposal in support of
>>>> this attribute.
>>> That would be getting ahead of things. doc="" is currently at the
>>> initial stage of the WG's chartered decision policy[1] ("We expect
>>> that typically, an editor makes an initial proposal..."). The next
>>> step (assuming disagreement) would be to invoke the Basic Process of
>>> the chairs' decision policy by filing a Bugzilla bug[2]. Change
>>> Proposals don't happen until the Escalated Process, much farther down
>>> the line.
> Ted's description of the process is pretty much on the money. Thanks!
>> I don't have enough knowledge of the feedback that Ian as received,
>> nor am I aware of the relevant use cases driving this change.
>> I would have to disagree, then, unless I see a more comprehensive
>> proposal. Ian doesn't have to provide a formal change proposal, but I
>> don't think it's unreasonable to ask to see more than
>> "Quick heads-up:
>> In response to implementor feedback and based on a brief discussion with
>> Maciej, I will be adding a specification for the oft-discussed doc=""
>> attribute on <iframe> to the HTML5 spec in the near future."
> I think Ian has been good about answering technical questions and adjusting the proposal in response to feedback. The remainder of the thread has also explained the use case. I'd like to continue to use the minimum level of formality we can for any given issue. Thus, if anyone has a question about this proposal or a problem with the concept or details, it would be great to get that on the table in concrete form.

It is not unreasonable to ask that someone, Ian or otherwise, to
provide a more detailed summary of what this change is, what it is
for, the impact, and the use cases driving the result.

I do think it is unreasonable to expect people to have to play 20
questions to drag this info out, and then scour through a thread to
attempt to put this info together.

> Regards,
> Maciej

Received on Sunday, 17 January 2010 04:56:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:07 UTC