- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:19:20 +0200
- To: Michael (tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Jan 27, 2009, at 05:12, Michael(tm) Smith wrote: > But as it stands now, the draft is in part a conscious attempt at > experimenting a bit with doing things a little differently -- at > trying to offer a contrasting alternatives to test both some of the > assumptions/choices that went into the design of the HTML5 > spec (e.g., the choice you made to use prose descriptions for the > content models) and also those that went into the HTML4 spec (in > terms of that document's scope and structure). To me, the it looks more than experimenting "a bit". Implementing the system for producing "HTML 5: The Markup Language" seems like no small undertaking. I think others could better understand the reasons in favor of publishing "HTML 5: The Markup Language" as a WD claiming normativity if you could elaborate on why you judged this experiment important enough to commit so much effort to it. I realize that everyone decides what they volunteer their time for, but the choice of taking the initiative to re-express an area that "HTML 5" already covers seems significant when considered in the context of the possibility of opting to edit areas that aren't yet covered, such as the rendering section to name one that actually overlaps with the *informative* parts of "HTML 5: The Markup Language". I'd like to understand the significance better. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 13:20:10 UTC