- From: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:55:25 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > Rather, the question is why this > specification needs to be normative given that it contains the same > information as the HTML 5 specification already does. Is the simple answer to this question not just "because if it is non-normative, it is of no use" ? If I, as a professional webmaster, need to know how I must express myself in HTML 5 in order for my document(s) to be valid, there is no point my looking at a document that is simply informative : if it is merely informative, then it may be wrong, possibly by being over-simplistic in some obscure context. Equally, I have no wish to have to dig in a document as complex as the current draft specification : it may well contain exactly the information that I need, but it contains so much more that I may well have great difficulty in getting an answer to my own, purely markup, question. Thus I believe that Mike's approach is the correct one, and that the final product of this WG should consist of a number of similar documents, each addressing one specific aspect of what is currently called "HTML 5", but which in practice is more accurately described by its sub-title : "A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML". Philip TAYLOR
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 11:55:59 UTC