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

Re: ISSUE-89 idioms - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 08:47:18 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimJaqRN67OMMnOEUETOtQW2BL9-AA2QtSvOQufp@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 20.05.2010 20:58, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> Issue 89 Counter Proposal
>> =========================
>> ...
> I agree that working on these kind of guidelines is useful. I also agree
> that it's ok to do in the this Working Group, it sufficient interest is
> there.
> On the other hand, I disagree that the language spec is the right place to
> do it. Even if it wasn't too big already (which it is), separating the
> normative spec from authoring advice seems to be the better approach; in
> particular it allows documents to be published and progressed independently.

If someone were to work on a HTML Markup Cookbook spec that contained
more than just the handful of examples currently in the html spec, I'd
support that and recommend removing this section from html itself.
Since we're currently lacking that, though, I must protest a split of
this section.

Received on Friday, 21 May 2010 15:48:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:19 UTC