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

Re: ready to publish "HTML5 differences from HTML4"?

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:54:32 +0200
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, bhopgood@brookes.ac.uk
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.tuhfo6d064w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:07:05 +0200, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> I suppose we could use a space between HTML and 4.

Done.


> [...]
>
> (by the way, Anne, there's a space between HTML and 5 in the WG
> decision
> http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/46423D1F.5060500@w3.org;list=public-html )

Oh, ok. I don't really like that. Draft uses HTML&nbsp;5 now though.


> [...]
>
> True; "backwards compatible" is a subtle thing to discuss/define;
> I could live without it for this document.

I reworded the paragraphs in that section.


> [...]
>
> As the WG hasn't made any decisions to take this markup out of the
> language, I'd rather stick to reporting the differences factually;
> i.e. say they appear in one specification and not in the other.
>
> I don't have any specific suggestions for section
> "1.1. Backwards compatible" except to delete it. (though
> that probably crosses the "large change" boundary...)

See above. Let me know if this is better.


>> (3) 1.1 Third para: there is no guarantee that having things clearly
>> defined will make any difference whatsoever to what gets implemented in
>> the future. Previous standards efforts can vouch for that. This is  
>> wishful
>> thinking. In any case, why is this para in a section called Backwards
>> compatible? I don't think this para really adds anything to the  
>> document.
>
> I could live without it.

The paragraph now says something else.


> I suppose it might help to elaborate
> with examples, such as <em/text/ .

Added.


>>  Second
>> sentence is not a sentence.
>
> I don't see a non-sentence around there. Maybe it's been fixed already?

Not sure what he's referring to.


>> (10) 3.2/3.3 The rest of this section uses the phrase 'can be used'. To  
>> me that implies the element has a certain meaning (unstated)  but can  
>> also be used for this function. Why not say what <embed> is for rather  
>> than saying what it 'can be used for'. The two statements are  
>> different. Why not
>> remove the word 'can' and 'can be' from the document completely.
>
> Fine by me.

I changed instances where I thought it made sense. I'm not convinced it  
makes sense to remove 'can' from the document completely. If you feel that  
is necessary feel free to provide me specific text changes for each  
occurrence.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 14:55:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:01 GMT