- 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>
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 00:30:22 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > 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