32419 - Request new 'html4' keyword

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

Description

[Scott A. Colcord]

I'd like to suggest adding an 'html4' keyword, to signify items that are 
required for compliance with the W3C html 4.0 specification.

Comment 1

[Scott A. Colcord]

Hmm...bug 7954 is a META bug to gather html4 issues...is there any reason that 
html4 is done with a METAbug, but css1 and dom1 have their own keyword?

Comment 2

[David Baron :dbaron: 🏴󠁵󠁳󠁣󠁡󠁿 ⌚UTC-7]

Might we want different keywords for things that are required for compliance and
things that are features that are not required for compliance (i.e., much of the
spec)?  I would think so, but maybe not.  (Perhaps they could be html4 and
html4comply?)

In any case, I think the keyword(s) should be created.

Comment 3

[Matthew Tuck [:CodeMachine]]

I don't think a keyword should be created if the tracking bug stays.  For some
of the reasons given for the superiority of tracking bugs, see bug #28883.

Comment 4

[David Baron :dbaron: 🏴󠁵󠁳󠁣󠁡󠁿 ⌚UTC-7]

Most html4 issues aren't linked to the tracking bug because nobody remembers the
number, I think.  At least, I don't.  (And I do remember quite a few bug
numbers...)

Comment 5

[Scott A. Colcord]

I prefer a keyword to a tracking bug, because (as dbaron points out), the 
tracking bug does you no good if you don't happen to know about it (I had no 
idea until someone mentioned it in a newsgroup).  The keyword better lends 
itself to doing database queries, and, since keywords are used for CSS and DOM 
issues, there's some value in being consistant.

Comment 6

[Hixie (not reading bugmail)]

You can find all the tracking bugs by looking for all the bugs with "meta" in 
the keyword field. So it is not difficult to learn of the tracking bugs.

Tracking bugs allow generally better tracking of the issue. They have a 
dependency tree, and if bug 8527 is ever implemented then they would make it
a lot easier to work out when an issue is completely fixed. (e.g., put the 
HTML4 tracking bug to sleep, and when all issues are fixed, it'll notify 
everyone interested that HTML4 support is done.)

In reality, the tracking bug vs keyword issue is a moot one. Both have their 
good points and their bad points, but it all boils down to personal opinion in
the end. For large issues like HTML4, a keyword is probable better, for small
issues then meta bugs are probably more suitable.

Anyway, keyword requests are Jan's domain. Reassigning...

Comment 7

[leger]

Just catching up from vacation...checking with rickg, ekrock and gerardok for 
input on this issue.

Comment 8

[ekrock's old account (dead)]

I vote for adding the keyword in this case. Reasoning:
1) Tracking HTML 4.0 compliance is important, and we'll need to document known 
bugs for the release notes.
2) For some standards like DOM0/1/2, we don't need a keyword because those 
standards have their own components. However, HTML 4.0 compliance bugs are 
spread across multiple Bugzilla components (HTML Tables, etc.), so a keyword 
would enable easier compliance tracking.
3) It's very hard for active Bugzilla participants (let alone newbies) to 
remember tracking bug numbers, but keywords are easy to remember. Lots of folks 
are participating in standards compliance tracking and analysis; this would make 
everyone's life easier.
4) Agree with dbaron that to avoid a proliferation of very special-interest 
keywords, for minor/narrow/personal-interest topics, tracking bugs are better.

Let's do this!

Comment 9

[gerardok]

I think that having the 'html4' keyword would be more useful for us than the 
current HTML4 meta bug. I'd hate to populate bugs with lots of keywords, but 
this one might be needed because we use the Component field for splitting the 
HTML functionality by items (like Tables, Frames, Forms, etc) that are ortogonal 
to the HTML version.

Comment 10

[leger]

This is in.  Marking Resolved/Fixed.

Comment 11

[leger]

Marking Verified.

Comment 12

[Dave Miller [:justdave] ([e-mail])]

Moving to Bugzilla product

Comment 13

[timeless]

mozilla.org:bugzilla ... keywords