I'd like to suggest adding an 'html4' keyword, to signify items that are required for compliance with the W3C html 4.0 specification.
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?
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.
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.
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...)
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.
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...
Assignee: terry → leger
Just catching up from vacation...checking with rickg, ekrock and gerardok for input on this issue.
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!
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.
This is in. Marking Resolved/Fixed.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Moving to Bugzilla product
Component: Bugzilla → Bugzilla-General
Product: Webtools → Bugzilla
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla old
Version: other → unspecified
mozilla.org:bugzilla ... keywords
Component: Bugzilla-General → Bugzilla: Keyword & Component
Product: Bugzilla → mozilla.org
Target Milestone: Bugzilla old → ---
Version: unspecified → other
Component: Bugzilla: Keywords & Components → Administration
Product: mozilla.org → bugzilla.mozilla.org
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.