Re: addition or subtrraction? [was Re: dropping longdesc attribute]

On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 16:31 -0400, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
> scott lewis wrote, quote:
> That said, when a change is requested the burden of proof falls on  
> the requester. And that swings both ways: someone wanting to add  
> <longdesc> into the spec faces the same burden of proof as someone  
> wanting to take <image>'s @alt out of the spec.
> unquote
> excuse me, but longdesc isn't being proposed as an addition to HTML5;
> it exists in the only NORMATIVE spec, HTML4x, so the burden of proof 
> that it isn't necessary falls upon those who made the initial decision 
> to deprecate it...

The burden of proof is somewhere in between, at this point.

While the charter says "A language evolved from HTML4", it
also says "This will be a complete specification, not a delta

The working group has agreed to use the text of the HTML 5 spec
for review, but we haven't made any decisions about language itself.

One constructive way forward would be to take the specification
of longdesc from the HTML 4 spec and make specific suggestions
about how to patch it into the HTML 5 text. I can imagine lots of
details that might come up in the process. The HTML 5 spec tends
to go into more details than the HTML 4 spec did.

Perhaps the editors will get around to that on their own in
due course; If the arguments around longdesc have not already
been captured in the wiki issues list, it's helpful to summarize
them there, to help the editors find them.

Another constructive way forward would be to propose test cases.
I'm open to driving the design from test cases as much as from spec

However, it is not constructive is to continue to discuss
matters that the Working Group has resolved...

> ... i STILL believe 
> that starting with HTML5 as our working draft is WRONG;
> <>

Your objection was noted in the 9 May decision record.;list=public-html

Unless you have new information sufficient to convince the
chairs that the WG should re-consider the decision, it is
out of order to discuss it. And since by your own admission
you have already presented this information, it is not new
and it is out of order.

Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 21:19:23 UTC