Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated

Ah.  The document scope [1] explains why it uses "HTML" in the title as
opposed to HTML5 or HTML(5).

--Xaxio

References:
[1] http://html-differences.whatwg.org/#scope


On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Gordon P. Hemsley <gphemsley@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 18:20:49 UTC