W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: ACTION-95, ISSUE-65: Plan to publish a new WD of HTML-5

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:37:43 +0100
Message-Id: <p06240868c5a60f1e1307@[17.202.35.52]>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

At 14:00  +0100 28/01/09, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:55:25 +0100, Philip TAYLOR 
><Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org> wrote:
>>Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>
>>>Rather, the question is why this specification needs to be 
>>>normative given that it contains the same information as the HTML 
>>>5 specification already does.
>>
>>Is the simple answer to this question not just
>>"because if it is non-normative, it is of no use" ?
>
>I do not think so.

I agree.  Most people using C learn(ed) it from the non-normative 
Kernighan and Ritchie 
<http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Prentice-Hall-Software/dp/0131103628/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233148595&sr=8-1> 
(OK, maybe I am too old).  I really doubt that many learn it from, or 
use for daily reference, the formal ANSI C specification, which is 
normative.

That doesn't stop the book from being worth $46 according to Amazon 
(well, OK, they ask for $46, which is not quite the same).  Nor does 
it stop the HTML WG from producing one or more helpful and 
informative non-normative guides targetted at specific audiences.
-- 
David Singer
Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 13:39:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:00 UTC