W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: ISSUE-53: mediatypereg - suggest closing on 2009-09-03

From: Shawn Medero <smedero@uw.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:57:25 -0700
Message-ID: <b0c61c410908271157h6428474aw96bc4111a9e61a02@mail.gmail.com>
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:


or even the newly minted:


and having to follow all the internal references... versus the rather
pleasing "at a glance" view you get from Mike's version


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.

Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 18:58:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:54 UTC