On 20.9.2012 0:02, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> 164 hgroup element
>>>
>>> Retain the current hgroup language in the spec. Note that a number of
>>> shipping browsers implement the syntax. Identify the semantics as an
>>> at risk feature.
>
> Why did you stop reading there? The very next paragraph suggests the
> possibility that extension specs (plural) be written.
Of course, I read the whole document. You are probably refering to part:
"... MAY prohibit certain otherwise conforming content (e.g. prohibit
use of <hgroup>s)..."
It just seems odd to keep controversial hgroup in spec and allow
creation of extension spec which will prohibit it. It makes more sense
to have extension spec which extends not shrinks something.
If the plan is to get to REC status faster then all features which are
controversial or not yet interoperable should be moved to extension
specs. If for some features you propose to split them (some a11y ones)
and for some to keep them (eg. hgroup) then the plan doesn't look as
very unbiased.
Jirka
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jirka Kosek e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
Professional XML consulting and training services
DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------