Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated

It is my understanding that the W3C version lists "HTML5" and the
WHATWG version uses "HTML". That was what I intended by "HTML(5)". I
didn't mean the parentheses were included literally.

Gordon

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Xaxio Brandish <xaxiobrandish@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/
>
>



-- 
Gordon P. Hemsley
me@gphemsley.org
http://gphemsley.org/ • http://gphemsley.org/blog/

Received on Friday, 3 May 2013 18:36:18 UTC