- From: Bob Lund <B.Lund@CableLabs.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 17:01:43 +0000
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- CC: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
FYI - https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27370 On 11/18/14, 5:44 PM, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >Just register a bug on the HTML spec - the editors should triage it. >Silvia. > >On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Bob Lund <B.Lund@cablelabs.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 6/23/14, 5:11 PM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>On Jun 23, 2014, at 16:10 , Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>>> We would need to be consistent for all constants defined in the spec >>>>in >>>>defining such a referencing scheme. Also, it has no impact on the >>>>normative implementations of UAs. I would therefore suggest to add a >>>>sentence like this to an introductory section with an explanation of >>>>how >>>>to find the URLs for all defined constants, maybe with a kind value add >>>>an example. >>> >>>works for me! >> >> It looks like this didn't make it into the recent HTML Recommendation. >> Should a bug be submitted against HTML WG or HTML.next? >> >>> >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Silvia. >>>> >>>> On 24 Jun 2014 07:21, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote: >>>> I would actually prefer that Œthe w3c¹ simply decide, I think. >>>>Ideally >>>>there is a sentence somewhere saying roughly >>>> >>>> ³The URI to identify an HTML[5] track Œkind¹ value, when used in other >>>>contexts, is http://Š² >>>> >>>> As I say, DASH uses a Scheme (think, namespace) + Value pair. >>>> >>>> On Jun 23, 2014, at 12:08 , Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> > On 23/06/2014 19:09 , David Singer wrote: >>>> >> On Jun 23, 2014, at 10:06 , Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >>> David Singer writes: >>>> >>>> Since we want permanent labels, I fear that tying them to a >>>> >>>> version of the spec and its anchors and/or sections, and >>>> >>>> location, might be fragile. And, as Robin points out, we don¹t >>>> >>>> need choice. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> The whole point of W3C's usage of undated URIs is so that the >>>> >>> location _doesn't_ change. As long as there is a W3C, >>>> >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/#attr-trace-kind-subtitles will >>>> >>> resolve. That's as good a promise as you're going to get >>>> >>> (persistence as commonly understood is a service-level guarantee, >>>> >>> _not_ a property of names!). >>>> >> >>>> >> and when HTML5 moves to HTML6 or 7? Is the name really specific to >>>> >> this version of HTML? >>>> > >>>> > That's why I suggested using /html/ instead of /html5/ if you want >>>>something that updates with versions. If you want something that's >>>>guaranteed to be absolutely stable forever, use the dated version as >>>>Henry suggests (or a namespace document). >>>> > >>>> >> what if some editor decides to change the name of the anchor >>>> >> (consistently in the document), so now it¹s >>>> >> >>>> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/#attribute-trace-kind-subtitles >>>> >> >>>> >> is there really a guarantee of stability for anchor names? >>>> > >>>> > That's undocumented, so if you need it to resolve (I thought you >>>>just >>>>needed names) then you shouldn't rely on it ‹ we've broken these >>>>several >>>>times before. In practice we probably won't break this for /html5/; we >>>>will almost certainly break them in some future version. >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon >>>> >>>> David Singer >>>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc. >>>> >>> >>>David Singer >>>Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc. >>> >>> >>> >>>.. >>> >>
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2014 17:02:24 UTC