- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:26:05 +0200
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby, Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:01:46 -0400: > On 08/25/2010 05:15 PM, Steven Faulkner wrote: >> HI Sam, >> >> Do any of the other documents you list contain normative content that >> conflicts with normative content in the HTML5 spec? Or are being >> developed as replacements for normative requirements in the HTML5 spec? > > Not to my knowledge. Steven said "other documents". Did you mean to say that Steven's document is the only one document which "conflicts with normative content" in the "HTML5 A vocabulary" spec? Or would you rather prefer an other word than "conflicts" – such as "extends"? Or would it be up to the "Relevant Index" document to specify the relationship ... or? How about http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-in-html/#xmlns--prefixed-attributes ? My own view is that the "Relevant Index" document is a good proposal because it would raise the attention about the other, relevant documents which this group has produced. Getting such attention has the potential of solving ISSUE-116. I'm be willing to participate in a group that edits such a doc. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2010 22:26:40 UTC