- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:56:35 +0200
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Aryeh Gregor wrote: > Your definition of XXXX suggests that there's a one-to-one > correspondence between URLs and XXXXs, so why not treat them as Incorrect. Many URIs can identify the same XXXX. > isomorphic? Any reference to an XXXX can be reworded to refer to a > URL instead. The word "resource" can then be used in more or less its > normal English meaning, to talk about YYYYs. I think this is roughly > what the spec has done. This usage might not accord with some other "some other"? Sorry, this is getting ridiculous. > specs, but it ends up being completely precise and unambiguous taken > by itself. It also uses less standards jargon, and more practical > terms that anyone should understand, and at least that is a good > thing. If that is a good thing, why aren't we changing stuff like: > A DOCTYPE must consist of the following characters, in this order: > > 1. A U+003C LESS-THAN SIGN (<) character. > 2. A U+0021 EXCLAMATION MARK (!) character. > 3. A string that is an ASCII case-insensitive match for the string "DOCTYPE". > 4. One or more space characters. > 5. A string that is an ASCII case-insensitive match for the string "HTML". > 6. Optionally, a DOCTYPE legacy string (defined below). > 7. Zero or more space characters. > 8. A U+003E GREATER-THAN SIGN (>) character. ??? BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 07:57:16 UTC