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

Re: Differences between the W3C and WHATWG specifications

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:16:50 +0200
To: "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com>, "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vefyxwbc64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:46:05 +0200, Leif Halvard Silli  
<xn--mlform-iua@målform.no> wrote:
> 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:
>>> 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.

CSS 2.1 is a good example. We've had plenty of confusion there too with  
the TR/ version being hopelessly behind (and still is; lots of changes  
have been made since September 2009).


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 11:18:05 GMT

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