- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:16:42 +0200
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- CC: Dannii <curiousdannii@gmail.com>, HTML4All <list@html4all.org>, Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Karl Dubost 08-04-14 04.55: > Le 14 avr. 2008 à 11:36, Leif Halvard Silli a écrit : >> The difference from "transitional" is that 'unready' should be >> something that is meant to be temporary, for each document. And not >> like the proposed WYSIWYG flag which, just as the trasinsitional >> types, are offered as a less strivt version of HTML. 'Unready' is >> mean to help the author reach the goal. It is not meant as an >> alternative goal. >> > "meant to be", "should", etc. > The issue is crippling into the language. "Transitional" is almost > never used as it was "meant to be", nor implemented in such a way to > help the transition. I guess it's a case of bad design choice, that > was difficult to know in advance that it would be. But we can try to > avoid repeating the same mistakes. However, you can validate a 'transitional' document. Wheras, it would be impossible to get a document stamped with 'unready' to validate.. (Allthough, you could of course validate = check it for errors.) Therefore, an 'unready' stamp, placed there by the author himself, would not be same thing. (Wheras a WYSIWYG stamp would be something of the same.) -- leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 04:17:24 UTC