- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 22:04:39 -0500
- To: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
On Aug 4, 2007, at 7:56 PM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote: > > At 20:55 +0300 UTC, on 2007-08-04, Mihai Sucan wrote: > > [...] > >> 1. "The dateTime DOM attribute must reflect *the datetime content >> attribute*." >> >> I noticed this is a common error in the spec (if others agree it's an >> actual error). >> >> My experience in English tells me that's wrong, knowing what the >> phrase is >> supposed to mean. The datetime content attribute, sounds like the >> datetime >> attribute is of content - which is not logical, and confusing. >> >> I would suggest the following correction: >> >> "The dateTime DOM attribute must reflect the datetime attribute >> content." > > FWIW, I don't understand either one's meaning. Is this about the > content of > the datetime attribute? In that case: "The dateTime DOM attribute must > reflect the datetime attribute's content." or "The dateTime DOM > attribute > must reflect the content of the datetime attribute.". > I think Sander's proposed language is by far the clearest ("must reflect the datetime content attribute's value" might also work). I think the term '"content attribute" just makes it harder to read. Perhaps markup attribute would be better (though I know there are problems with that too). Language! (shakes head). Take care, Rob
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2007 03:04:57 UTC