- From: Debi Orton <oradnio@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 22:53:14 -0400
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, "'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>
At 08:46 PM 6/3/2007, Karl Dubost wrote: >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. I agree. I do not think the two approaches are mutually exclusive, but the concepts can reinforce each other. I'd be glad to start with #1. Dan described an approach of going through section by section. Is that how you're suggesting we proceed? Debi Orton / oradnio@gmail.com
Received on Monday, 4 June 2007 03:17:48 UTC