Re: Differences between WHATWG and W3C specs

Hi Jens,

i have responded to the question on the webaim thread and made a change in
the spec example to remove ambiguity

This is incorrect usage, because cite is not for quotes:
>
> <p><cite>This is wrong!, said Hillary.</cite> is a quote from the
>    popular daytime TV drama When Ian became Hillary.</p>
>
> This is an example of the correct usage:
>
> <p><q>This is correct, said Hillary.</q> is a quote from the
>    popular daytime TV drama <cite>When Ian became Hillary</cite>.</p>
>
> feedback (on bug preferably) appreciated!

--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 20 September 2013 03:17, Jens O. Meiert <jens@meiert.com> wrote:

> There are many differences between the WHATWG and W3C HTML specs.
>
> I’d like to pick a simple example, the <cite> element [1,2], to wonder
> how useful maintaining two specs really is—and whether we on the W3C
> side take the appropriate steps to keep such differences to a minimum?
>
> To use the <cite> example, it doesn’t seem clear what the benefit is
> to remove important parts like “A person's name is not the title of a
> work” (I’ve just observed confusion on a WebAIM list [3]—the WHATWG
> spec was clear about this), and I’d claim it’s not a good use of time
> to change things like names (for example, Ian became Hillary).
>
> In whose interest is this?
>
> If there really is need for two specs, though I don’t want to open
> this can here, what does the group think about limiting changes and
> differences to what reflects insurmountable dispute between groups? Is
> that something to embed in the group charter?
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/text-level-semantics.html#the-cite-element
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/text-level-semantics.html#the-cite-element
> [3] http://webaim.org/discussion/mail_message?id=24285
>
>
> --
> Jens O. Meiert
> http://meiert.com/en/
>
>