- From: Gordon P. Hemsley <gphemsley@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 14:16:05 -0400
- 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