rob at robburns.com
Tue Aug 21 22:11:30 PDT 2007
(I checked the list and it looks like everyone has subscribed except
Bruce Lawson. Unless I missed you Bruce. So I'm including him as a
separate CC). I also noticed Chaals from Opera there on the list.
Hadn't noticed you on the list before. Welcome Chaals. Philip, are
you subscribed twice on purpose, or do we have two Philips in the group?
Anyway, I agree with all you say here Jason. On the Ruby issue,
however, I think the only issue that WhatWG is trying to look at is
the errant handling of Ruby. That is, if the Ruby in the document is
well-formed and valid, then I don't think they plan to make it in any
way different than the rest of Ruby (though we need to keep our eye
on them). Also since IE is probably the only browser that implements
Ruby outside of XML (that I'm aware of anyway), it probably makes
sense to try to match IE's error handling (unless it does one of
those crazy IE error-handling things like it does from time to time).
BTW, it looks like HTML syntax is already enabled on the wiki. So
On Aug 21, 2007, at 7:36 PM, Jason White wrote:
> Here are a few suggestions regarding the list, to which I received the
> invitation and have now submitted a subscription request:
> 1. If anybody thinks they might write something on the list that
> they wouldn't
> wish the entire world to know about (including people who disagree
> or who
> might be offended), then keep the archives private. The same holds for
> subscriptions. This is not a recommendation on my part, but only a
> regarding what you should consider in making these choices.
> If you want everything that you post to be visible to all, then a
> public list
> is the way to achieve it, with the attendant responsibilities that
> would need
> constantly to be kept in mind.
> Also, I think html4all.org and the mailing list should be open to
> of XHTML 2 and related technologies, as well as
> internationalization issues -
> not just accessibility in the strict sense of the term.
> The suggestion on the HTML wg list that Ruby has to be specified so
> as to be
> compatible with IE before it can be integrated into HTML 5, is
> potentially of
> concern. I don't know what the limitations of the IE implementation
> are, as I
> am not a Windows user, but this issue needs to be monitored closely
> to ensure
> that users in Japan (and any other countries that rely on Ruby)
> aren't given a
> second-rate solution in HTML 5.
More information about the List_HTML4all.org