- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:03:18 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: >> Ian Hickson wrote: >>> If you think it's obvious, maybe you would be willing to explain it to >>> me? >>> >>> The only interpretation that I can see is that Mike means >>> non-normative text giving an introduction to the feature to help >>> authors use it. That, however, is not a definition, and would in any >>> case be inappropriate for obsolete features such as those being >>> discussed here. >> Defining what an element or attribute means isn't "informative"; it's an >> essential part of specifying a vocabulary. > > If by "defining" you mean text with no normative conformance criteria, > that is untestable, and whose only purpose is to help authors work out > what the feature is for, then no, that's an essential part of specifying a > tutorial and is basically only fluff at the specification level. It's > useful, important even, for features we want authors to use, but it has no > use whatsoever for obsolete features that authors aren't allowed to use. Well, in that case HTML5 is unsuitable as the *only* specification referenced by the text/html media type registration. > ... BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 09:04:04 UTC