- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:00:14 +0100
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- CC: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Lachlan! On 19/11/2012 13:19 , Lachlan Hunt wrote: > This email covers both of my objections to the alt-techniques spec, > regarding publishing on the Rec track and contradicting HTML5. This > outlines a few areas of contention and compares equivalent sections of > both the alt-techniques and HTML5 drafts. Having read through your list of issues, and taking into account the fact that you don't necessarily have the time to list all issues that you may find, am I nevertheless understanding correctly that your objection is to the conflict between HTML5 and AltTech, and not about the content of AltTech itself? So if we either removed the guidance in HTML5 (pointing to AltTech instead) or folded AltTech into HTML5, can we assume that your objection would be addressed? (Of course where the content differs you may orthogonally still prefer one content over the other.) Additionally, I am unclear about one part of your objection as initially stated[0]. You indicate that since the content in AltTech is guidelines, then it shouldn't be phrased normatively. It's unclear to me whether you object to AltTech having normative content because only HTML5 should be normative here, or because you feel nothing on this specific topic (or only parts of it) should ever be normative. (For instance, it could be suggested that only the requirements that can be machine-validated within reasonable assumptions about today's technology should be normative, whereas guidelines that can only be appreciated by sentient entities ought to remain as informative guidelines.) Can you please clarify? [0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011May/0051.html -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 19 November 2012 15:00:28 UTC