10041 2010-06-29 09:28:55 +0000 Document lacks discussion about ratinale for section element 2011-04-14 15:05:11 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG HTML5 differences from HTML4 unspecified PC All RESOLVED WONTFIX P2 normal --- 1 marcosc annevk annevk mike public-html-admin public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 36467 0 marcosc 2010-06-29 09:28:55 +0000 >>>> On what grounds was the addition of the section element made? what was >>>> lacking in HTML4? >>> >>> That seems like something for this document: >>> >>> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Rationale >> >> To me, it seems like something that should be in this document. Also, >> I'm not interested in the WHATWG HTML spec, I am interested in the W3C >> HTML spec. It's already terribly confusing that there are two >> versions, and the fact that the WHATWG version keeps growing outside >> the scope of the W3C version might make the scope of the WHATWG >> rationale larger than W3C HTML5. > > Lets cross that bridge when it becomes an actual problem. It's a problem. I would like a working group decision then on this matter and/or a formal response from the WG chair. >>> Since you are asking the same question for all new elements I have >>> omitted those questions from my reply. >> >> For each, the questions still apply. > Again, I would like a working group decision on this matter and/or a formal response from the WG chair. 47447 1 zcorpan 2011-04-14 15:05:11 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: Agreed with reporter in private email to close this bug.