[Bug 21995] Spelling and grammatical errors, as well as other suggestions.

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21995

Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #1 from Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> ---
https://github.com/whatwg/html-differences/commit/5db6909016c735350eb423efad7cb7226d55ab96

> In order to simplify the readability of this document,

The current document has "For readability,", which seems to say the same thing
with fewer words, so I've kept that.

> "critical mass" isn't something that can be well-defined

The same can be said for "growing amount". I dropped it instead.

> "The doctype has no other purpose."
> Debatable? “infer an author's intent when the document lives in a tree of documents targeting various specifications.”
>
> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/help-whatwg.org/2008-February/000123.html

The doctype does not serve that purpose.

> To be defined as a document, the html root element must be included.

The tags are optional.

> must

I try to avoid RFC2119 keywords to avoid confusion since this document is not
normative.

> May want to include a reference to where this is specified.

The document doesn't include references in general. Why here?

> Not sure “embed” is new (it was simply deprecated), so perhaps the section title could contain “new and revised” instead of just “new”.

No, HTML4 doesn't even mention embed.

> Is “setter creator” correct?  I can't seem to find these terms used together anywhere else.

Yes, it's correct. See the IDL for HTMLOptionsCollection.

Thanks for the review! Please reopen or file new bugs if you disagree with my
changes or if I missed something.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Monday, 13 May 2013 12:52:13 UTC