W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-evangelist@w3.org > June 2007

Re: HTML5 Tutorial efforts

From: Debi Orton <oradnio@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 22:53:14 -0400
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, "'public-evangelist@w3.org' w3. org" <public-evangelist@w3.org>
Cc: Debi Orton <oradnio@gmail.com>,Chris Adams <chris@tuesdaybegins.com>, Sean Fraser <sean@elementary-group.com>,Dylan Smith <qstage@cox.net>
Message-ID: <46637fc4.52b5e7a7.22bd.7872@mx.google.com>

At 08:46 PM 6/3/2007, Karl Dubost wrote:

>Le 23 mai 2007 à 00:06, Debi Orton a écrit :
>>Karl, if we can identify non-controversial aspects of the present
>>HTML 5 draft, I'd be glad to start now.  Is there any clear way to
>>make that distinction?
>I think the most beneficial part of the specifications for authors is
>for now.
>[3. Semantics and structure of HTML elements][1]. It would be good to
>break into pieces.
>So we need first a template. There are, at least, two ways of
>proceeding for this kind of things and they are not mutually exclusive.
>1. Going through the list of names and explain their meanings with
>examples and best practices. (a, b, blockquote, etc. )
>2. Talking about semantics as large and how to achieve things.
>(paragraphs, lists, tables, forms, etc.)
>What do people prefer to work on? As I would much like that we get
>things done more than imposing something that people do not like.
I agree.  I do not think the two approaches are 
mutually exclusive, but the concepts can 
reinforce each other.  I'd be glad to start with #1.

Dan described an approach of going through 
section by section.  Is that how you're suggesting we proceed?

Debi Orton / oradnio@gmail.com
Received on Monday, 4 June 2007 03:17:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:20 UTC