Re: New split-out drafts

On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Some things that struck me as odd and perhaps worth improving:
> 1) The introduction has no normative content, and at least in the 
> copy doesn't usefully link to the modules. Perhaps it should 
> be combined with either the Core or Vocabulary specs.

Having non-normative parts if actually pretty common in the W3C (e.g. XML 
Schema and RDF both do this).

> 2) The core spec defines parts of the vocabulary, including link types, 
> and the hidden, accesskey, contenteditable and draggable attributes.

This was an attempt to address feedback raised through Bugzilla.

> 3) Cross-module links appear to be broken or no longer links (thus 
> losing the cross-reference) in many cases.

Cross-spec cross-references in general are apparently going to be 
supported at some future point by the preprocessor script that we use, so 
hopefully this will become a non-issue. (gsnedders, can you shed any light 
on this?)

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Saturday, 9 January 2010 01:40:18 UTC