W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2012

Re: proposal for ISSUE-191: replace ins and del elements by an attibute-based solution

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:43:14 -0500
Message-ID: <4F1DE282.3000902@intertwingly.net>
To: public-html@w3.org
On 01/23/2012 05:09 PM, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> Le 20/01/12 18:52, Sam Ruby a écrit :
>> On 01/20/2012 12:01 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>> it would be nice to include a reference to a more fully elaborated
>>> refutation of ins/del, rather than simply asserting "it is well known
>>> ... since the end of the 80's"
>> I agree with the above, and will also note that the Change Proposal
>> doesn't include an assessment of the impacts of this change.
>> The definition of what we expect from a Change Proposal can be found
>> here:
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#change-proposal
> I can try to gather such information but you have to understand the last
> time this was discussed was during a corridor discussion with XHTML2 WG
> probably eight years ago... I don't have voice recordings of corridor
> discussions.

I don't believe that new invention is required.  Instead of relying on 
an assertion that something is "well known", or alluding to hallway 
discussions in the distant past, the rationale you provided in your blog 
post is more along the lines we are looking for:


> That said, the URL above says "Describes the reason for the change". I
> gave one: it's impossible to mark "deleted" or "inserted" an element
> entirely if the content model of its parent element does not allow ins
> and del. And deleting the contents is a different operation.

I think that if you read your change proposal, you will not find those 
words above.

I also think you need to go further.  Describe the impact of this 
proposal (both positive and negative) on those who use the current 
element, browser vendors, and implementors of Wysiwyg editors.

> That said, I am an implementor of a Wysiwyg editor called BlueGriffon
> and I would like to understand why my voice on my expertise domain
> appears to be less worth than another here.

What is valued here is the ability to state clearly the rationale for a 
given change.  Please do draw on your experience to produce such.

> Of course, we can also ask Microsoft to explain us the same thing.
> Several people from that company explained me between 2000 and now they
> implemented change tracking through attributes and not elements for the
> reason outlined above.

By all means, invite them to participate.

> </Daniel>

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 22:43:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:19 UTC