W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2013

Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated

From: Gordon P. Hemsley <gphemsley@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 14:16:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CAH4e3M7VchBuGdOtTO=LAp68C=Z04QwdA5f0S6vLPWiVUohfKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xaxio Brandish <xaxiobrandish@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>, whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
The way I interpreted it, Jukka meant that the title could be
something more flowing, like "Differences between HTML4 and HTML(5)".

Gordon

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Xaxio Brandish <xaxiobrandish@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good day,
>
> Let us start with a definition:
>
> es·o·ter·ic
> /ˌesəˈterik/
> Adjective
> Intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people
> with a specialized knowledge or interest.
>
> The document Simon delivered and formatted is useful to a wide range of
> audiences interested in HTML and how it differs from a previous named
> release of the HTML roadmap, so I'm not sure calling the title of the
> document "esoteric" is accurate.
>
> Regardless of that, if the title is obscure, could you please offer up
> title suggestions so that your posting becomes more constructive?  Keep in
> mind that an existing document [1] on the whatwg.org site references HTML
> version 4 as "HTML4" already, so there is a precedent set for this.  I do
> not think this will confuse anybody, and it would have to be changed
> throughout documents on the entire site to be consistent.  I'd like to
> propose that both nomenclatures are valid when referring to the entire HTML
> 4 specification.
>
> The important thing (IMHO) to remember here regarding the title is that
> HTML released two subversions of HTML 4, HTML 4.0 [2] and HTML 4.01 [3].
> The document must be intended as a differentiation between the entire
> version of HTML4, since it does not specify a specific subversion to diff?
> However, it links to the HTML 4.01 specification in the "References"
> section.  If this is *only* a diff between HTML 4.01 and the living
> standard, perhaps the title should then be "HTML differences from HTML
> 4.01" so that the document has additional meaning.  If there are
> differences between HTML 4.0, HTML 4.01, *and* HTML5 in the same section of
> the document, those should probably be appropriately marked.
>
> --Xaxio
>
> References:
> [1]
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/introduction.html#history-1
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
>
>> 2013-05-03 18:37, Simon Pieters wrote:
>>
>>  The past few days I've been working on updating the HTML differences
>>> from HTML4 document, which is a deliverable of the W3C HTML WG but is
>>> now also available as a version with the WHATWG style sheet:
>>>
>>> http://html-differences.**whatwg.org/<http://html-differences.whatwg.org/>
>>>
>>
>> I think you should start from making the title sensible. "HTML differences
>> from HTML4" is too esoteric even in this context.
>>
>> Think about a heading "FOO differences from FOO9". Wouldn't you say that
>> some FOOist is writing very obscurely?
>>
>> Besides, the spelling is "HTML 4". Especially if you think HTML 4 is
>> ancient history, retain the historical spelling.
>>
>> Yucca
>>
>>
>>



-- 
Gordon P. Hemsley
me@gphemsley.org
http://gphemsley.org/http://gphemsley.org/blog/
Received on Friday, 3 May 2013 18:16:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:59 UTC