- From: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:06:49 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:53:51 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no> > wrote: >> What you say implies that those two pages must always be 100% in line >> with the rest of the spec - as a mirror, at each and every moment. >> Which would be nice of course if they were. But in fact, it is enough >> that they are 100% correct and updated only when the document is >> supposed to be ready ... at Last Call or something. > > What I'm saying is that those things take time to write and maintain. Agreed. But if they were present (and, better still, if they had been present from day-1), then they would provide an excellent resource for informed discussion on matters of fundamental import (i.e., what elements should, and should not, appear in the vocabulary of HTML 5). As it is, the closes one gets are entries 3.6 to 3.18 (inclusive) in the Table of Contents at http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/, and even the TOC is larded with what might be considered irrelevancies from the perspective of someone wishing to review the language /qua/ language rather than from some more general perspective. Philip TAYLOR
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 12:07:23 UTC