Re: Draft TAG Finding: Consistency of Formatting Properties

Also sprach Håkon Wium Lie:

 > Also sprach Norman Walsh:
 > 
 >  > In response to formattingProperties-19[1], I have published "TAG
 >  > Finding: Consistency of Formatting Property Names, Values, and
 >  > Semantics"[2]. The TAG invites public comment on this draft
 >  > finding.
 > 
 >  > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#formattingProperties-19
 >  > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/formatting-properties.html
 > 
 > The topic of discussion has a long history in W3C. Formatting was ...

   [112 lines cut, available from [1]]

The TAG discussed my comments, which seems to have been the only
public comments, in a TAG teleconference 8 July 2002 [2]. Here is the
relevant discussion:

   2.3 Consistency of formatting property names, values, and semantics

   NW: I see Håkon's reply only now (due to email problem).
   CL: CSS WG wanted previous good behavior mentioned in the finding.
   DC: HWL's message suggested a central regisry. Are we saying "no
       thanks" to that suggestion?
   TB: Our finding is correct. Hakon suggested writing down a process.
       I don't think this changes the finding.
   CL: In other words, we don't care how you get it right as long as you do?
   DC: Works for me.
   NW: I will make another stab that mentions good behavior and
       presumably we can call it done at that point.

Dan Connolly is correct in stating that I suggested a "central
registry" in the sense that I wanted properties to be described in one
place. I wrote:

   W3C should publish one language-neutral specification describing
   formatting and have other specifications point to it.

Based on my experience, I do not see how one can expect consistent,
testable formatting properties when the same property is described by
different specifications, but I respect that the TAG thinks otherwise.

It seems, however, that the last part of my message was not discussed
by the TAG nor acted upon by the editor. The last part contained one
specific proposal for rewording (not use the term "XML vocabulary")
and one specific suggestion to correct an (IMO) error in the XSL
specification. Fixing the error in XSL is not the task of the TAG, but
the wording in TAG findings are. I repeat my proposal:

  Having just argued against [2], I also have one specific comment on its
  wording. I quote:

    "Furthermore, as XML vocabularies are now being combined in many
    ways, it is becoming more than merely beneficial, it is becoming
    imperative that a common set of properties and values be developed."

  I don't think XML should be mentioned. Using XML to describe
  presentation is still a controversial issue for some and the above
  statement opens a different discussion.

I'm the first to acknowledge that not all issues raised can be
discussed in all details. The TAG's time is limited and valuable.
However, since I was the only one to make a public comment (AFAIK) and
my change proposal was quite specific, I think it's reasoable to
expect some kind of response.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0120.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/07/08-tag-summary

Cheers,

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          cto °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome

Received on Friday, 9 August 2002 09:27:28 UTC