This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision | |||
design:html-requirements [2014/09/17 07:18] rsewikiadmin Note: items deleted from the list were overtaken by events and are no longer a problem |
design:html-requirements [2014/09/17 07:28] (current) rsewikiadmin |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
> these ids). | > these ids). | ||
- | * | + | * Mention of non-div tags should be removed |
====Other open issues==== | ====Other open issues==== | ||
> What prefixes to use for autogenerated tags? | > What prefixes to use for autogenerated tags? | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Heather to just pick something | ||
> Should an RFC style document encourage authors to use common tags for | > Should an RFC style document encourage authors to use common tags for | ||
Line 118: | Line 120: | ||
> help solve for the problem of intuitive pointers to common sections in | > help solve for the problem of intuitive pointers to common sections in | ||
> RFCs? | > RFCs? | ||
- | (so far, Design Team has had one yes, one no) | + | |
+ | * How to write software that identifies security considerations? | ||
+ | * The only mandatory tag right now is for abstract. | ||
+ | * We can have two lists: one for mandatory, and one for suggested. | ||
+ | * Or maybe just make mandatory and see who complains. | ||
+ | * Paul to add something here in XML draft. | ||
> What reference to use (if any) for HTML5? | > What reference to use (if any) for HTML5? | ||
+ | |||
+ | * leave that up to the RFC Editor what we’re currently tracking, similar to browsers. | ||
+ | |||
> Where is the line between indicating what the XML should do within the HTML | > Where is the line between indicating what the XML should do within the HTML | ||
Line 126: | Line 136: | ||
> just information for the XML draft? | > just information for the XML draft? | ||
- | > Should the HTML tags in the Appendixes stay (and get cleaned up) or be removed? | + | * Joe and Paul to review |
> | > | ||
Line 133: | Line 143: | ||
> draft be changed from "< | > draft be changed from "< | ||
> that we specify classes for all sections that seem to have special meanings. | > that we specify classes for all sections that seem to have special meanings. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Joe might have a counter proposal; the one Paul has is a starting place that might work as well | ||
+ | * will have more info to make a decision after the id section is done | ||
> It's not clear what "same logic" in " | > It's not clear what "same logic" in " | ||
Line 138: | Line 151: | ||
> attributes get placed, or something else? | > attributes get placed, or something else? | ||
+ | * Joe to to review | ||
> The document says " | > The document says " | ||
Line 154: | Line 168: | ||
> specifically in terms of input and output? | > specifically in terms of input and output? | ||
+ | * Joe and Paul to review |