Re: RfC: LCWD of W3C DOM4; deadline July 31

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 7/10/14 12:25 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>> The language "nuked from orbit soon" and "will be nuked" needs to be
>> rewritten. This level of informality is inappropriate for a W3C REC track
>> document. Better to say "expect to be deprecated" or similar.
>>
>
> I agree with this proposal (particularly since "nuke" might not translate
> accurately).
>
>
>  It is annoying that a search for "Warning!" in the document fails (at
>> least on Chrome and Firefox) because it is injected from a content style
>> property.
>>
>
> This seems a bit like a personal preference to me. As such, I don't think
> it should block the LCWD publication although if Glenn created a PR that
> was agreeable to Robin, then I  don't see any harm in merging it.


This is more a general note to the editor that using unsearchable content
is a bad authoring strategy, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were a
W3C authoring guideline discouraging this practice. If there isn't, then it
may be useful to inquire further (if that is intentional or not).


>
>
>
>  There remains a normative reference to the WHATWG "URL" specification,
>> which needs to be resolved before moving to REC. It would be well advised
>> to describe the expected process for doing this in the SoTD section.
>>
>
> I don't think this point should block publication of a LCWD. (I also think
> the reference policy [1] describes a way to handle this for subsequent
> publications.)
>

I agree this shouldn't block LCWD. However, it will be an issue for PR.


>
> -AB
>
> [1] <http://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references>
>
>
>