For the record, I have reviewed the HTML5.1 changes: https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/PR-html51-20160915/changes.html#changes
which are in themselves not the easiest to review, filed this accordingly: https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/592 In addition to that editorial request, the one technically objectionable change I found in HTML 5.1 is the re-addition of 'rev'. I have commented on the issue that was used to add 'rev' back to HTML 5.1 accordingly with reasons for why that was a mistake (and should have never happened - might be exposing process issues that I may have to deal with separately) https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/256#issuecomment-253674835 Other than that, I would re-emphasize Annevk's post: https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-at-11 Which covers higher-level problems with HTML5.1, most of which are as of yet unaddressed. I believe this is sufficient to file a nonformal objection with those two points (technical: drop rev, overall: HTML5.1 problematic as a whole). Thanks, Tantek On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:45 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Wednesday 2016-10-12 11:22 -0400, Chris Hutten-Czapski wrote: >> Can you provide any details (either inline, or a sampling of links) to >> summarize the broader concerns that might not be encapsulated in the >> document itself? > > Some links: > https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-at-11 > https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/507 > > -David > > >> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 9:46 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: >> > A W3C Proposed Recommendation is available for the membership of W3C >> > (including Mozilla) to vote on, before it proceeds to the final >> > stage of being a W3C Recomendation: >> > >> > HTML 5.1 >> > W3C TR draft: https://www.w3.org/TR/html/ >> > W3C Editor's draft: https://w3c.github.io/html/ >> > deadline: Thursday, October 13, 2016 >> > >> > If there are comments you think Mozilla should send as part of the >> > review, please say so in this thread. (I'd note, however, that >> > there have been many previous opportunities to make comments, so >> > it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues for the first >> > time at this stage.) >> > >> > Note that this specification is somewhat controversial for various >> > reasons, mainly related to the forking of the specification from the >> > WHATWG copy, the quality of the work done on it since the fork, and >> > some of the particular modifications that have been made since that >> > fork. > > -- > 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 > 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 > Before I built a wall I'd ask to know > What I was walling in or walling out, > And to whom I was like to give offense. > - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) > > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
