- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:00:10 +0100
- To: "Philip TAYLOR" <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:55:25 +0100, Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org> wrote: > 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" ? I do not think so. > 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. If this assumption is true, it might help to point out where it went wrong so it can be addressed. I'm sure the intent is to make this information easily accessible. > 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". -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 13:01:05 UTC