- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 07:08:50 -0400
- To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
- CC: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, Ian Devlin <ian@iandevlin.com>
http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-185 "Drop the pubdate attribute" ---- Change Proposals: http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik/drop_pubdate http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Idevlin/keep_pubdate_change_proposal Cosmetic analysis: *) Both contain a summary *) Both contain a rationale [but see below] *) Both contain detail sections - "keep pubdate" seems to have extraneous text (left over from a template?) that starts "Use one of...". This needs to be removed. - both contain a prose description without prior permission, but this is not an issue in either case. *) Both contain impact sections --- Substantive analysis - Drop pubdate Claims that the pubdate attribute is not used or that hAtom supersets its functionality. Given that the counter proposal cites actual deployed usage, this claim needs to be discarded. Without this claim, the remaining arguments don't appear to be sufficient to proceed. Net: we need to provide feedback asking that this proposal be updated to address the claims of actual usage. Does not make any claims about moddate. As all of the arguments given for pubdate apply to moddate, perhaps this proposal simply needs to be updated to state that? --- Substantive analysis - Keep pubdate Claims concerning pubdate seem sufficient to merit allowing this part of this proposal to proceed to a survey -- once the cosmetic issue ("Use one of...") identified at the top of this email is addressed. Claims concerning moddate consist of a statement that "there is a need" and a second statement that "it would be useful". As no evidence is provided for either claim, this part of the proposal does NOT merit progressing to a survey. Either evidence needs to be provided or this part of the proposal needs to be removed. --- Overall: If the proposals are updated to address the moddate feedback above, we will proceed to split this issue. To illustrate why: consider what would happen if we were to accept both proposals and get no other feedback. At the present time, keep pubdate has made its case, but add moddate would not have. We would have to either make a split decision or make a decision that doesn't align well with the arguments presented. - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 11:09:38 UTC