W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Re: reference in HTML5 differences document.

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 07:46:34 +0100
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Steve Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "HTMLWG WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.wai6fwrqidj3kv@simons-macbook-pro.local>
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 00:30:22 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  

> On Feb 29, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Simon Pieters wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:47:54 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> I think it would be better to have the draft continue to refer to  
>>> HTML5, describe the differences between HTML5 and HTML4, and to update  
>>> the reference.
>> OK. Why?
> Reasons for all of the above:
> - The document is titled "HTML5 differences from HTML4", so you'd expect  
> it to contain what the title says.
> - Document is published by the W3C, so you would expect it to at minimum  
> cite relevant W3C drafts, even when there are also versions published  
> elsewhere.
> - Most W3C documents that cite HTML5 either cite only the W3C draft, or  
> cite HTML5 in addition to WHATWG HTML as a single reference.
> Per your comments in the bug, it seems like you intend to do this, but  
> would also like to describe differences that only affect WHATWG HTML,  
> though clearly marked distinctly, and to cite both versions of  
> HTML/HTML5 once your toolchain supports it.
> In my (personal, non-Chair) opinion, that seems like a fine approach. As  
> long as the document includes HTML5 differences from HTML4, it seems ok  
> to me for it to also document other differences, as long as it is clear  
> what's what. Since what you plan to do seems fine to me, I don't think  
> we need to debate the reasons for it further.
> Regards,
> Maciej

Thank you.

Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 2 March 2012 06:47:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:49 UTC