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

Re: WG Decision: Publish six heartbeat drafts, as well as Polyglot, Alt Techniques as FPWDs

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:40:16 +0200
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100622214016887983.2968da59@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Sam Ruby, Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:20:40 -0400:
> On 06/02/2010 12:44 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> This call passes.  Anne: please update the html4-differences.
> The issue[1] holding up publication has been resolved.  Current 
> schedule is for publication on Thursday, June 24.  Should that not be 
> possible, the next opportunity is Monday, June 28th.
>> - Sam Ruby
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0215.html

I don't know why I need to repeat this ... But Anne has still not 
updated Differences document as I asked for on 9th of June - and the 
Chairs have silently ignored it as well.


Summary: The most striking bug that I describe in that letter, is that 
the Differences doc presents <figure> as an element for _Embedding_ 
whereas HTML5 has moved into the Grouping elements section of the spec. 
The Differences doc also has such basic errors as incorrect (though 
rerouted) links. The move from Embedding element to Grouping element is 
not even commented - it represents a change that Differrences should 
have documented. (I'm willing to ignore my two requests to strike two 
sentences that I described as 'laconic/political/ironic' - see my 
original letter.)

Many in the WG (but not I myself) have fought for keeping <figure> in 
the spec and have also rejected Shelley's earlier request to focus 
<figure> as an element for embedding, and instead supported <figure> as 
an element for wide use. But the Differences document has not picked up 
this development, and instead continues to give an incorrect impression 
of what HTML5 says about <figure>, thereby making people basing their 
opinions on <figure> on incorrect and narrow information.

I do not ask Anne to describe <figure> according to my liking - I ask 
him to describe <figure> according to the spec and to document how it 
has developed  and in light and respect of the recent decision process 
w.r.t. <figure> and so on.

leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 19:40:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:20 UTC