- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 21:16:02 +0200
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html@w3.org
Philippe Le Hegaret, Tue, 17 May 2011 17:22:39 +0200: > On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 14:44 +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote: > html/xhtml authoring doesn't say anything explicit in its status on > whether a REC or a Note. It says however "Note that this recommendation > does not define how HTML5-conforming user agents should process HTML > documents.", so one could infer that it's intended to become a REC as > well. Philippe, could you update the title of the document in the poll? The title of the compatibility document - in the poll - is not the same the document itself uses. Poll (and the home page of the HTML wg) has: "HTML/XHTML Compatibility Authoring Guidelines " Document itself: "Polyglot Markup: HTML-Compatible XHTML Documents" For all the other documents in the poll, the name in the poll and the name of the document itself, have clear correspondence. The name used by the document reflects discussing in the working group and even within TAG. The poll (and the homepage) ought to use the title which the document uses. The name used by the document itself IMHO gives a much better view of what it contains than the informal name used in the poll and the homepage. The name used in the poll reminds about Appendix C - and some other Notes that have been published with similar content. From my point of view, the Polyglot Markup document goes much longer than pure "authoring guidelines" - it attempts to reach as far as possible w.r.t. identical DOMs in XML and HTML. (Clearly, the degree of identical DOMs sought for in that document, is not always important.) Leif H Silli
Received on Saturday, 21 May 2011 19:16:34 UTC