This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
design:html-requirements [2014/09/15 08:09] rsewikiadmin |
design:html-requirements [2014/09/15 13:03] rsewikiadmin |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
> Which of the following are we wanting to happen?: | > Which of the following are we wanting to happen?: | ||
> | > | ||
- | > < | + | > < |
- | target=' | + | |
> | > | ||
> or | > or | ||
Line 98: | Line 97: | ||
> also suspect we should be pulling out a section explicitly discussing | > also suspect we should be pulling out a section explicitly discussing | ||
> these ids). | > these ids). | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Other open issues==== | ||
+ | > What prefixes to use for autogenerated tags? | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Should an RFC style document encourage authors to use common tags for | ||
+ | > things like " | ||
+ | > help solve for the problem of intuitive pointers to common sections in | ||
+ | > RFCs? | ||
+ | (so far, Design Team has had one yes, one no) | ||
+ | |||
+ | > What reference to use (if any) for HTML5? | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Where is the line between indicating what the XML should do within the HTML | ||
+ | > for things like ASCII art, packet diagrams, etc, and what is appropriately | ||
+ | > just information for the XML draft? | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Should the HTML tags in the Appendixes stay (and get cleaned up) or be removed? | ||
+ | |||
+ | > | ||
+ | > Using classes instead of ids to aid with styling. | ||
+ | > This is a very good point. If others agree, I would propose that the current | ||
+ | > draft be changed from "< | ||
+ | > that we specify classes for all sections that seem to have special meanings. | ||
+ | |||
+ | > It's not clear what "same logic" in " | ||
+ | > the same logic as sections" | ||
+ | > attributes get placed, or something else? | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | > The document says " | ||
+ | > be exposed as anchors in the HTML as well." I suggested in my nits message | ||
+ | > striking " | ||
+ | > needs to be more specific and reflect _how_ the source XML allows anchors to | ||
+ | > be expressed, and how those will be translated into the HTML. This falls, I | ||
+ | > think, into being clearer about author-provided and autogenerated ids. | ||
+ | > | ||
+ | > There' | ||
+ | > <a class=' | ||
+ | > that are generated? | ||
+ | > | ||
+ | > The paragraph that begins "For other block items, such as < | ||
+ | > and < | ||
+ | > specifically in terms of input and output? | ||