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

Re: Differences between the W3C and WHATWG specifications

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:46:05 +0200
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100617124605714511.77a77739@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Simon Pieters, Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:49:15 +0200:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:14:17 +0200, Anne van Kesteren 
> <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:58:14 +0200, Julian Reschke 
>> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> On 16.06.2010 01:40, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>>    <p>This version of the W3C HTML5 specification is a snapshot of part
>>>>    of the work done by these groups as of [LONGDAY] [YEAR]. Because the
>>>>    HTML specification is continuously being maintained, implementors
>>>>    and authors are strongly urged to read the latest editor's draft
>>>>    instead of this snapshot. The W3C and WHATWG editor's drafts of HTML
>>> 
>>> I think it's bad to publish working drafts, and to tell people not 
>>> to look at them. There's a reason snapshots are published.
>>> 
>>> I have no problem in pointing out that current edits reside 
>>> somewhere else, but we don't need to go further than that.
>> 
>> We've had this discussion before and in practice these TR/ snapshots 
>> turn out to waste quite a bit of time of engineers. I've seen it 
>> happen on multiple occasions at Opera and I'm sure it happens 
>> elsewhere too. Somehow they get to the TR/ version unknowingly a lot 
>> of the issues they encounter have already been fixed. Clearly 
>> pointing them in the right direction makes a lot of sense.

Some questions have to be solved by the readers, and/or their employers.

> I think it doesn't make a difference for engineers who end up at TR/ 
> by google search if the History section strongly urges them to read 
> the latest version, since they will never read the History section. 
> To be effective, it should be clear where ever you end up in the TR/ 
> that it's a snapshot and point to the latest version (without urging 
> or anything -- readers can decide for themselves if they want the 
> snapshot or the latest).
> 
> I suggest there be a clearly visible but non-disturbing floating info 
> box on all pages in the TR/ version saying something like "This 
> document is a snapshot. The _latest editor's draft_ is also 
> available."

CSS 2 has taken for years to get ready. But today it is a spec that one 
can more or less trust as having been implemented. An excellent side 
with HTML5, as well, is that the goal is that readers can trust it. 
Hints that one can look elsewhere, undermine that trust. 
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 10:46:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:10 GMT