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

Re: Extension spec for hgroup (Was: Re: Getting HTML5 to Recommendation in 2014)

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:33:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+ri+V=1NcVf0xkH06DJ_g1KGxn8dEH+38r_SciRRo0LJMR72g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "w3c-wai-pf@w3.org" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> (janina@rednote.net)" <janina@rednote.net>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> (jbrewer@w3.org)" <jbrewer@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
hi Maciej,

>For reference, the HTML5 spec explicitly allows extensions to render specific elements nonconforming (emphasis added):

what i meant was not about whether it was technically doable in HTML5,
but whether it was practically meaningful. if the default for HTMl5
validation is that <hgroup> is conforming.


On 20 September 2012 18:17, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 7:08 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>> hi Maciej,
>>> If extension specs appear for some of the hgroup alternatives, then I think it would be reasonable to suggest to the WG to move hgroup itself to an extension.
>> I don't think an an 'extension' for HTML5 that is the removal of
>> hgroup really works ( I don't think that extensions that are meant to
>> replace  hgroup really work unless hgroup is also an extension, not
>> incumbent in the spec) extensions generally work for features not in
>> the spec.,
> For reference, the HTML5 spec explicitly allows extensions to render specific elements nonconforming (emphasis added):
> "When vendor-neutral extensions to this specification are needed, either this specification can be updated accordingly, or an extension specification can be written that overrides the requirements in this specification. When someone applying this specification to their activities decides that they will recognize the requirements of such an extension specification, it becomes an applicable specification.
> The conformance terminology for documents depends on the nature of the changes introduced by such applicable specificactions, and on the content and intended interpretation of the document. Applicable specifications MAY define new document content (e.g. a foobar element), **MAY prohibit certain otherwise conforming content** (e.g. prohibit use of <table>s), or MAY change the semantics, DOM mappings, or other processing rules for content defined in this specification. "
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/single-page.html#extensibility>
> So while it might sound odd, it does "work" and is explicitly allowed by the spec.
>> so I have created an alternate version of the spec with
>> hgroup removed:
>> HTML5 (- hgroup)
>> http://www.html5accessibility.com/HTML5extensions/HTML5.html
>> note: single page spec version has been known to crash browsers.
>> this is currently on my own server, can we please have a directory set
>> up on the w3c server to publish such specs , also please provide links
>> to such specs on the HTML WG homepage alongside the current drafts.
>> I will produce 2 more parallel specs 1 that has hgroup removed and
>> outlineMask 1 that has  hgroup removed and subline added
> That approach is certainly permitted, but I suspect it will be harder to get consensus for FPWD of a modified parallel spec than of an extension spec, based on past experience.
> Regards,
> Maciej

with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 16:34:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:27 UTC