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

Re: Section 1.6.1 relationship to HTML 4.01

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:31:47 +0200
Message-ID: <4A232173.6040802@malform.no>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Larry Masinter On 09-05-31 19.06:
> The discussion on "Design Principles" brought up the "(from scratch)" topic,
> which led to discussion of Section 1.6.1, "Relationship to HTML 4.01 and DOM2 HTML".
> I think updating the introductory material now is useful, because it is
> important to reviewers trying to understand the document and its context.
> 
> I think you asked for an explicit suggestion for new wording:
> 
> OLD
> 
>> 1.6.1 Relationship to HTML 4.01 and DOM2 HTML
> 
>> This specification represents a new version of HTML4, along with a new version 
>> of the associated DOM2 HTML API. Migration from HTML4 to the format and 
>> APIs described in this specification should in most cases be straightforward, 
>> as care has been taken to ensure that backwards-compatibility is
>>  retained. [HTML4] [DOM2HTML]
> 
> NEW
> 
> < 1.6.1 Relationship to HTML 4.01 and DOM2 HTML
> 
> < This specification represents a new version of HTML, including its DOM2 API.
> < This specification is based on widespread implementations and experience 
> < with HTML 4, but not the verbatim text of previous specifications[HTML4][DOM2HTML].
> < A separate document [HTMLDIFF] explains differences with HTML 4
> < in detail.  Migration to the format and APIs described in this specification
> <  should be straightforward, as backwards compatibility was a high priority. 
> 
> This does not claim to be a new version of HTML 4.01 and makes it clear
> that the text did not start with the HTML 4.01 document. It makes an
> explicit reference to the Differences document for details. It does not
> promise ("ensure") backwards compatibility but notes that it was a goal.
> If the working group continues work on Design Principles, a reference to
> [DESIGN] would be appropriate, for elaboration on the "backwards compatibility"

I support this in so far as it is better to be accurate about 
these things. The text should reflect reality.

Of course, I would like the reality to change somewhat.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 00:32:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:04 UTC