- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 09:46:33 +0900
- To: "'public-evangelist@w3.org' w3. org" <public-evangelist@w3.org>
- Cc: Debi Orton <oradnio@gmail.com>, Chris Adams <chris@tuesdaybegins.com>, Sean Fraser <sean@elementary-group.com>, Dylan Smith <qstage@cox.net>
Le 23 mai 2007 à 00:06, Debi Orton a écrit :
> Karl, if we can identify non-controversial aspects of the present
> HTML 5 draft, I'd be glad to start now. Is there any clear way to
> make that distinction?
I think the most beneficial part of the specifications for authors is
for now.
[3. Semantics and structure of HTML elements][1]. It would be good to
break into pieces.
So we need first a template. There are, at least, two ways of
proceeding for this kind of things and they are not mutually exclusive.
1. Going through the list of names and explain their meanings with
examples and best practices. (a, b, blockquote, etc. )
2. Talking about semantics as large and how to achieve things.
(paragraphs, lists, tables, forms, etc.)
What do people prefer to work on? As I would much like that we get
things done more than imposing something that people do not like.
[1]: http://tinyurl.com/397b7t
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/spec/Overview.html?content-
type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1#semantics
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Monday, 4 June 2007 00:46:51 UTC