[whatwg] HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD

[Julian Reschke]

Hi Manu,

Manu Sporny wrote:
> I took some time this weekend to go through the HTML5 specification and
> write warning language for features that are currently either
> controversial or have long-standing bugs logged against them. It is
> important that we draw attention to the least stable sections of the
> HTML5 draft in order to align public expectation as we move towards Last
> Call.

Thanks a lot for that.

> The only difference between this draft and Ian's latest draft are the
> warnings - there are no new technical additions or deletions. Since
> there are no new technical changes, there is no need to trigger a FPWD.
> 
> I am requesting three things of the HTML WG:
> 
> 1. That this version is published as the next heartbeat
>    Working Draft. Specifically, this is not a FPWD since there are no
>    technical changes and thus there are no additional patent concerns.

Sounds good to me.

> 2. Two other independent voices to support the publishing of this draft.
>    Without those voices, this proposal cannot be considered for
>    publishing.

I support that, even though I have some remarks about the actual 
warnings (or their lack of).

> 3. A poll is created with two options:
>    [ ] Publish Ian's latest draft to address the heartbeat requirement.
>    [ ] Publish Ian's latest draft with Manu's warning language to
>        address the heartbeat requirement.
> 
>    Whichever option that receives more than 50% of the vote will be
>    published. A tie will result in Ian's latest draft being published.
> 
> Here is the complete diff-marked version:
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html
> 
> Here is a link to every warning that was added to the HTML5
> specification (this is the easiest way to review the changes):
> 
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#editor-s-draft-date-08-August-2009
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#urls

I think that note should be rephrased; as far as I can tell, W3C, WHATWG 
and IETF people are working together to improve the situation. The main 
risk here is that revising RFC3987 (IRI) may take longer than we all 
wish, due to unrelated issues.

> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#fetch
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#misinterpreted-for-compatibility
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#implied-strong-reference
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#other-metadata-names
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#microdata
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#predefined-type
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#obsolete
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#the-source-element
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#alt
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#the-head-element
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#navigating-across-documents
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings-diff.html#the-bb-element
> ...

I agree with those.

Optimally, the "hyperlink auditing" (a/@ping) section should be 
mentioned as well.

> If Ian updates his spec, I can regenerate and republish an
> updated version of this document within an hour or two. The
> non-diff-marked specification can be found here:
> 
> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-warnings.html
> 
> This version of the specification will be checked into W3C CVS when
> Mike(tm) clears its addition to the repository.
> 
> -- manu


BR, Julian