- From: Matthew Ratzloff <matt@builtfromsource.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
- To: public-html@w3.org
On Wed, May 2, 2007 12:36 am, Josef Spillner wrote: > > On Tuesday 01 May 2007 22:36:33 Matthew Ratzloff wrote: >> Nah. You have a complete document for implementors and a much smaller >> document containing the allowed tags and usage guidelines for content >> authors. Content authors have no need or desire to view implementation >> details. They want to know what tags, attributes, and attribute values >> are allowed and what they do. > > This sounds a lot like SelfHTML to me, which is a guide for authors and at > the same time tries to report on browser difficulties with any HTML, CSS > etc. elements. > Unfortunately only the German and French editions are being maintained, > while the English one was closed down due to lack of interest. You could > look into that. There are certainly other similar guides as well. Just to be clear: I didn't have in mind discussing what individual browsers do. Just a simplified specification for content authors, so they don't have to wade through implementation details and don't even SEE deprecated elements. >> A second, smaller document detailing the >> changes from HTML 4 would also be helpful to them. > > A human-readable diff between major versions of a spec doesn't seem to be > common in other W3C specs. Looking at e.g. WSDL 2.0 and XSD 1.1, the > latter one summarises some differences to XSD 1.0, while the former one > doesn't reference its predecessor at all. HTML is unlike almost all other W3C specifications. It has a much broader audience, and that audience is not always tech-savvy. Most HTML authors have never even heard of WSDL or XSD, whereas the opposite is certainly not the case. So HTML (and with it, CSS) are unique cases in this respect. > To me it seems like a good idea to have some sort of comparison available > to the older/deprecated version of a spec. Yes. -Matt
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 18:00:09 UTC