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

Re: Design Principles, Section 1.6.1 relationship to HTML 4.01

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 19:17:26 +0000 (UTC)
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0905301906360.11443@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Sat, 30 May 2009, Larry Masinter wrote:
> 
> On the other hand, I think the document produced should honestly and 
> openly say what actually happened, who was represented, the scope of 
> applicability, in the abstract and intro front matter, in the "Design 
> Principles" published, etc.

This is not covered by the History section?

   http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#history-0

If there is anything additional you believe should be listed here, please 
let me know.


> Yes, the charter says the goal was to "evolve" the document from HTML4. 
> I think it is the obligation of the working group, in the documents it 
> publishes, to say that (and why) this path wasn't actually followed, and 
> give at least some summary of the reasons and the actual path taken.

HTML5 is indeed an evolution of HTML4. An evolution of a language doesn't 
have to involve using text verbatim from the previous specification.


> Right now, "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]
> 
> While you might want to argue under some legalism that a document 
> constructed "from scratch" was "a new version of HTML4", I don't see how 
> that statement ever got into the document in the first place, and would 
> formally object to publication of documents that continue this 
> misrepresentation.

Could you elaborate on how or why this is a misrepresentation? It seems 
completely truthful, accurate, and not in any sense misleading, to me. It 
certainly wasn't meant in a misleading manner. What text would you suggest 
instead?


> Just tell the truth -- everyone here knows it, people not in the working 
> group who read the document should too.

In what sense is it not the truth?


(I'll let Maciej respond to the rest of the e-mail, which appears to be 
about the design principles specifically, and not the HTML5 spec.)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 30 May 2009 19:18:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:37 GMT