Re: Deprecating the old pubrules on Aug 1st, 2016

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote:

> Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>, 2016-06-02 11:31 -0500:
> > Archived-At: <
> http://www.w3.org/mid/CAJdbnOA8Ey4wMZSRjtV1hHA3yKVrP=ofwc4kRm0rqSF4b3PNKQ@mail.gmail.com
> >
> >
>
>
> > But no, what I am asking is if the W3C profile that we use
> > for validating W3C publications restricts the checking to things that are
> > actually approved by the W3C.  W3C recommendations should not be using
> > microdata - at least not in the primary format that we are checking as
> part
> > of pub rules.
>
> Are you aware of any that actually are? Are there any real-world actual
> cases of that? And in the long list of problems that we’re here to try to
> solve together, is this really one that you want to prioritize?
>

Real-world cases of what?  Specs using features that are not part of the
baseline W3C recommendations?  I have no idea.  I brought this up because
the W3C pubrules have always been super restrictive in what can be included
in a formal publication (at least once it is past the WD stage). Microdata
was an example that is fresh in my mind.  I could have mentioned any of the
new elements coming in via extensions or being added / changed in HTML
5.1.  It's the same problem.

The stated (and probably reasonable) rationale for these restrictions in
formal publications from the W3C has always been that we must ensure
everyone can access our content.  So we cannot rely upon features that are
not broadly supported.  That doesn't just mean in the latest user agents.
It also means in assistive technologies, tool chains, translation engines,
search engines, what have you.

There is no way I am saying anything here that should come as a surprise to
anyone who has been involved in making standards.


I work on the W3C HTML checker on my own dime, and on my own time, and your
> partisan agitation about this seriously bums me out and de-motivates me
> from feeling enthusiastic about working with you on getting other actual
> real problems solved together.
>
> But if you want me to flip the bit completely, go ahead and keep it up.
>

Partisan agitation?  I am sorry that you feel that way.  I was just trying
to understand the scope of the publication rules changes and how they are
going to be enforced.

And fwiw, I also work on this on my own dime.


>
> > I imagine there are lots of other things that are getting
> > thrown into the WhatWG version of HTML that are also not included in HTML
> > as Recommended by the W3C.
>
> Yeah? You imagine? Maybe rather than imagining you could find specific
> cases
> of that. Ones that are actually causing any real problems from anybody?
>

I don't believe for a minute that any of this nonsense causes any real
problems for anyone (at least outside of ATs).  Pubrules has always been a
draconian mess.  Basically the bane of my existence for the last 15 years.
Every. Single. Time. I go to publish a spec I run into some crap that makes
me waste hours / days sorting it out.
I am attempting to explore what sort of fresh hell the new changes will
bring.  And ensure that the tools and specifications I maintain are in a
good place to help me and others avoid spending too much time there.  I am
sorry if exploring that offends you.  If you read back you will see that I
was not advocating for anything, nor asking for any changes.  I was just
asking how it will work. Because I honestly have no idea.


>
> Or better yet, maybe you can use your imagination to think about actual
> real problems to spend your time trying to help solve.
>
>
Seriously?  That was unworthy.



-- 
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops