- From: Shawn Medero <smedero@uw.edu>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:57:25 -0700
- To: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Michael(tm) Smith<mike@w3.org> wrote: > Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, 2009-08-26 02:28 +0000: > >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> > If we actually defined each element and each attribute in the way that >> > HTML4 does *and* define its operational behavior for the DOM then the >> > specification would satisfy all implementations. >> >> I don't know what it means to "define" an element if that is not to define >> its operational behaviour. > > It means defining what the element represents. Indeed. There's a noticeable difference between: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/text-level-semantics.html#the-a-element or even the newly minted: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/text-level-semantics.html#the-a-element and having to follow all the internal references... versus the rather pleasing "at a glance" view you get from Mike's version http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/a.html#a I know all the info I want is in the HTML 5 spec but sometimes I need to send a pointer to someone who isn't a spec-weenie and the HTML 5: The Markup Language view is often "good enough" for someone less interested in the nuances of say "The activation behavior of a elements". I'm not sure the new spec-author-view is quite right... but it is moving us closer. Shawn
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 18:58:11 UTC