W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Detailed review of 3.12.10. The time element

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 22:04:39 -0500
Message-Id: <C3DDECD2-FADA-46BA-A252-D862F01475C7@robburns.com>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
To: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>


On Aug 4, 2007, at 7:56 PM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

>
> At 20:55 +0300 UTC, on 2007-08-04, Mihai Sucan wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> 1. "The dateTime DOM attribute must reflect *the datetime content
>> attribute*."
>>
>> I noticed this is a common error in the spec (if others agree it's an
>> actual error).
>>
>> My experience in English tells me that's wrong, knowing what the  
>> phrase is
>> supposed to mean. The datetime content attribute, sounds like the  
>> datetime
>> attribute is of content - which is not logical, and confusing.
>>
>> I would suggest the following correction:
>>
>> "The dateTime DOM attribute must reflect the datetime attribute  
>> content."
>
> FWIW, I don't understand either one's meaning. Is this about the  
> content of
> the datetime attribute? In that case: "The dateTime DOM attribute must
> reflect the datetime attribute's content." or "The dateTime DOM  
> attribute
> must reflect the content of the datetime attribute.".
>

I think Sander's proposed language is by far the clearest ("must  
reflect the datetime content attribute's value" might also work). I  
think the term '"content attribute" just makes it harder to read.  
Perhaps markup attribute would be better (though I know there are  
problems with that too). Language! (shakes head).

Take care,
Rob
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2007 03:04:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:48 UTC