W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2005

[whatwg] WA 1.0 and WF 2

From: ROBO Design <robodesign@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:37:12 +0300
Message-ID: <op.szavsasimapogm@duron.mshome.net>
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:13:08 +0300, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, ROBO Design wrote:
<...>
>
> Yes. (Note that the </html> tag is optional, but its absence is an
> artefact of the tools I use to generate the spec).
>
>
<...>
>
> Right, the WF2 spec contains the WF3 wishlist at the end, and the WA1  
> spec
> contains notes all over the place.
>
>
<...>
>
> Why not? People have found the WF3 notes useful. I agree they shouldn't  
> be
> visible, but what's wrong with having them as comments?


It is interesting ... but ... 'weird' to me at least :).


<...>
>
> I might provide a split version in due course but it would be a lot of
> work so I'm not planning on doing it any time soon. I'd rather cut
> features out, to be honest.
>

A split version would be good, but only for final. I know it takes time  
and work, that's why only for final.

<...>
>
> As others have indicated, there's a spec for that language code. :-) But
> it's mostly for fun.
>

I believed so, but that 'spec' of the language code is not really a spec,  
it's more of a 'serious joke' :). Some guys 'defended' the use of  
en-GB-hixie, like it's something usual :). Thanks for clearing it out:  
mostly for fun.

-- 
http://www.robodesign.ro
ROBO Design - We bring you the future
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2005 03:37:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:43 UTC