W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: New round of Working Drafts (was Re: New split-out drafts)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:20:53 -0800
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <4B9C8FE0-B4E7-46D4-A4A1-455DD1819E94@apple.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>

On Feb 3, 2010, at 2:23 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> 
> On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:58 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Paul Cotton wrote:
>> 
>>> 3. References
>>> 
>>>> [HTML5] 
>>>> HTML5, I. Hickson. WHATWG, August 2009.
>>> 
>>> The HTML5 reference in this document points to the WHAT WG version of 
>>> HTML5.  This reference should be changed in the W3C FPWD to point to the 
>>> W3C version of HTML5.
>> 
>> Why?
> 
> It would be fine (as far as I'm concerned) to point to both the W3C and WHATWG versions, like XHR does:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#ref-html5
> 
> I think omitting mention of the W3C copy is a weird thing for a W3C spec to do. In this case, especially so since the WHATWG copy actually contains most of the text of the Microdata spec itself.

By the way, I note that the HTML Canvas 2D Context draft also references only the WHATWG copy of the spec. For basically the same reasons, I'd like to request a dual reference. For those who did not follow the link above, XMLHttpRequest cites HTML5 like this:

[HTML5]
HTML 5 (work in progress), I. Hickson, D. Hyatt, editors. W3C, 2008.
HTML 5 (work in progress), I. Hickson, editor. WHATWG, 2008.

Where the phrase "HTML 5" links to the appropriate copy of the spec in each case. I don't think there is any valid reason for a less complete citation that only references the WHATWG copy.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 02:21:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:01 GMT