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

Re: Bug 7034

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:36:49 +0100
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Ennals, Robert" <robert.ennals@intel.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100320153649885173.8b5ff0cb@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Sam Ruby, Sat, 20 Mar 2010 08:14:58 -0400:
> On 03/19/2010 05:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> 
>> On Mar 19, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> [co-chair hat off]
>>> 
>>> My request is for rationale. I assume there is a coherent strategy
>>> behind this, but I don't see it. Each time I take a closer look, I
>>> find what appears to me to be glaring inconsistencies.
>>> 
>>>> Incidentally, I think I would personally agree with both of the two
>>>> specific points above.
>>> 
>>> My request is for rationale. If there is a good rationale for these
>>> points that fits with a larger strategy, then I would disagree with
>>> both of those specific points above.
>>> 
>>> What you are asking me to do to take guesses as to what the intent is
>>> for the authoring requirements, take pot shots at the spec without
>>> this necessary understanding, see what falls over when I do, and then
>>> repeat the process until either nothing is left standing or what is
>>> left standing does have consensus.
>>> 
>>> That does not seem like a sane alternative to me.
>> 
>> What I'm asking is that you follow the Decision Policy guidelines for
>> what should go in a bug:
>> 
<http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#bugzilla-bug>.
>> I don't think bug 7034 satisfies any of those four bullet points in its
>> current state.
>> 
>> And I'm letting you know that if the bug report doesn't meet those
>> guidelines, the likely result is NEEDSINFO, and that I at least would
>> agree with that resolution. If you're not interested in doing anything
>> further to avoid that outcome, then I am satisfied to leave the bug alone.
> 
> You have now seen what a mere evening's worth of work can produce:
> 
> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2010/03/20/Authoring-Conformance-Requirements

> 
> I don't even know how to begin to reasonably categorize all this 
> data. 
  [...]
>  What is in order 
> here is to ask for a bit of rationale for the current set of 
> conformance criteria.  I'll note that this is not like a parsing rule 
> for which the answer could be "three out of the four browsers agree"; 
> this is a topic which is a clearly a matter of judgment, and so 
> asking those that formulated this set of opinions to explain their 
> rationale is in order.

Even if we apply the "3 of 4 browser agree" line of though, things 
doesn't compute.

HTML5, unlike HTML4, allows <noscript> inside the <head> element. Fine. 
But why?  Is it so "you can use a separate style sheet for IE when 
scripting is disabled"? [1]

Right now we discuss the <meta> content-language element. HTML5 
currently requires a behaviour which no browsers implement. My change 
proposal presents use cases which are just as realistic as the 
"scripting disabled in IE" scenario.

[1] http://blog.whatwg.org/styling-ie-noscript

-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 20 March 2010 14:37:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC