Re: some thoughts on objections to publishing ""HTML 5 differences from HTML 4"

On Jun 29, 2007, at 23:33, Robert Burns wrote:

> This document does not reflect the work of this WG.

It only needs to reflect the *current* diff between HTML 4.01 and the  
HTML 5 *draft*. It tells how things *are* given the current state of  
the *draft* not how we want them to end up.

> Again, I think proposing to publish a "differences" document when  
> the WG has not even reviewed the draft of the spec (which we're  
> scheduled to do over the next few weeks) is putting the cart way  
> before the horse.

This is a chicken and egg problem. Earlier people complained that  
reading the whole HTML 5 draft is too much for them as the first step  
of review and a summary of changes should be provided. Now you are  
saying we can't publish that assisting document before we have  
reviewed the document whose review the assisting document is supposed  
to facilitate.

> If we can't communicate what "dropped" means within our own WG, how  
> can we possibly imagine that this  document will adequately  
> communicate ideas like that to the broader public.

I second to Lachy's suggestion to do s/dropped/omitted/.

Henri Sivonen

Received on Friday, 29 June 2007 22:18:31 UTC