Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML 5.1

2016-10-17 Thread L. David Baron
The comments submitted on HTML 5.1 are archived at: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2016Oct/0003.html -David On Thursday 2016-10-13 17:35 -0700, Tantek Çelik wrote: > For the record, I have reviewed the HTML5.1 changes: > > https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/PR-html51-20160915/changes.h

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML 5.1

2016-10-13 Thread Tantek Çelik
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 obj

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML 5.1

2016-10-13 Thread L. David Baron
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://gith

Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: HTML 5.1

2016-10-12 Thread Chris Hutten-Czapski
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? On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 9:46 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > A W3C Proposed Recommendation is available for the membership of W3C > (including