Re: Proposed split of the HTML specification

Hi,

thanks a lot for this *great* feedback! In fact it's so good I'm 
implementing pretty much all of it :)

On 22/06/2015 23:30 , Travis Leithead wrote:
> Sections we thought were spot-on (had the right balance of content):
> * HTML Editing - Great baseline for future editing work (might eventually merge with some of the Editing TF's current work?)

I think that would certainly be something we should look at.

> * HTML Edits (propose a better name: HTML Change Tracking Elements?)

Yes, that's a lot clearer.

> _HTML_
> * We felt that this could be expanded slightly by integrating some content from the other sections that felt better expressed in the opening document. Namely:
> ** Section 1 from both the "HTML Syntax" and "XHTML Syntax" documents

This might need some massaging later to make the sections flow better, 
but in terms of putting the content together it makes sense.

> _Browser Object Model_
> * Want to remove Scripting section and move to the "Scripting HTML" document to keep all scripting together.
 > _Scripting HTML_
 > * We thought this should include the section on Scripting (7) from
 > the Browser Object Model document.

Good point, done.

> _Core Attributes_
> * Remove 'dir' and send to new doc as described below.
 > * HTML Bidirectional Algorithm Requirements + BDO/BDI (from HTML
 > Text) + dir (from Core Attributes) = new spec: HTML Bidirectional
 > Text -- keep it all together for ease of update/review.

That makes a lot of sense, I didn't like the split we had at all.

> _HTML Syntax_
> * Move out the first section into top "HTML" document, keep the rest.
> * Rename to "HTML Parsing and Serialization" ('cause it has a nice familiar ring to it :-)
>
> _XHTML Syntax_
> * Same as above, but rename to "XHTML Parsing and Serialization"

Hahaha, done :)


> _HTML Best Practices_
> * Want to move that up to the main HTML document. It will likely be updated frequently, just as the "HTML" document may need to be for managing the indexing and syntax descriptions. Seems like a better place to start than in a separate doc.

I think that works well. It was the wrong name for that document anyway. 
I think the root HTML document is a good place to hold both ways of 
finding the rest and high-level advice to authors.

> We thought these sets of documents would be better combined given their stability and similarities:
>
> * HTML Tables + HTML Lists

I don't have a strong opinion about this one, but since I agree about 
the rest I'm guessing you're probably right ;)

> * The Structure of HTML + Sections in HTML + HTML Blocks -- though not sure how to name this

That's a good idea. The way people see structuring their documents 
likely puts all of these to work together. I think just sticking to 
"Structure" works. It's good to reduce the number of specs a bit, too.

> * HTML Figures + HTML Images -- Better together, used often together in examples, etc.

Done.

> * HTML User Interfaces + HTML Interactivity Attributes (these belong together). Keep HTML User Interfaces as a top-level doc.

Also very sensible.

> * Merge "Browsing the Web" with Browser Object Model document. -- these combine the mechanics of browsing with the rest of the browsing objects.

Yes, those are related enough that they would likely get edited together.

Thanks a lot! The changes are online. This drops us down to 31 modules :)

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2015 09:33:07 UTC