- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:25:10 +0100
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Lachlan Hunt wrote: > I'd like to point out that asking for detailed rationale for every dropped, added and changed element and attribute is unrealistic, since the HTML5 spec isn't finished, and not all issues have been resolved yet. > > The document represents the differences between HTML4 and the *current state* of the HTML5 spec. We are all aware that the spec doesn't include some accessibility related features, and it is also clear that those issues are still open. Providing rationale to explain why a feature has been omitted when the issue is still open and undecided, is just not possible. As the spec evolves, elements and attributes will be added and removed, and the differences document should be kept in sync with the changes. Both fair observations. > I also recommend renaming the Dropped Elements and Dropped Attributes sections to Omitted Elements and Omitted Attributes, respectively. >Dropped seems to give the wrong impression that the listed features will never be included in the spec It does, the term has a finality about it. Josh
Received on Friday, 29 June 2007 19:25:29 UTC