- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:55:11 +0900
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Cc: Dannii <curiousdannii@gmail.com>, HTML4All <list@html4all.org>, Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Le 14 avr. 2008 à 11:36, Leif Halvard Silli a écrit : > The difference from "transitional" is that 'unready' should be > something that is meant to be temporary, for each document. And not > like the proposed WYSIWYG flag which, just as the trasinsitional > types, are offered as a less strivt version of HTML. 'Unready' is > mean to help the author reach the goal. It is not meant as an > alternative goal. "meant to be", "should", etc. The issue is crippling into the language. "Transitional" is almost never used as it was "meant to be", nor implemented in such a way to help the transition. I guess it's a case of bad design choice, that was difficult to know in advance that it would be. But we can try to avoid repeating the same mistakes. -- Karl Dubost - W3C http://www.w3.org/QA/ Be Strict To Be Cool
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 02:55:45 UTC