- From: Jens O. Meiert <jens@meiert.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 23:16:05 +0300
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
- Cc: W3C Public HTML <public-html@w3.org>
> This is an admirable effort, but there are some errors. Regarding <b>, it’s > definitely not “Bold text style” as per HTML5 CR (even though its definition > for <b> is messy to put it mildly, and <b> > *should* be defined as “bold text style” or, better, “bold font face”, but > it isn’t, in HTML5). > > Similar considerations apply to <i>. That’s true. These are actually relicts as the index is around for six years or so (the mail relates to a major update). I’ll fix that. By the way, if you and others would mind sending me any mistakes directly? That makes sure I don’t miss them and at the same time we cap the mail volume here. > I don’t quite see the idea of including XHTML 2.0, a draft that was never > completed. If you include it, why not HTML 3.0? It might have had more > influence: it was never implemented, but it was cited for many years after > its expiration. XHTML 2.0 has just been forgotten. This has also more historic reasons than anything—XHTML 2.0 was still being worked on when I created the index. I intend to keep it in there for also historic reasons for now. I’m having an eye on adding HTML 3.0 (as well as so-called 5.1). Thanks for the feedback! -- Jens O. Meiert http://meiert.com/en/
Received on Monday, 31 March 2014 20:16:53 UTC