- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:34:18 +0900
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- CC: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
On 2012/09/27 5:27, Noah Mendelsohn wrote: > > On 9/26/2012 12:06 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: >> >> Working Groups in general have historically been bad at that — it >> could be >> argued that they're not the right place. > > Maybe in general, but there's at least one thing the HTML WG could do > IMO: they could refer to [1] in all cases as the primary specification > for writing HTML, and they should refer to [2] as the specification for > building user agents, and BTW for understanding what those user agents > will/should do with buggy "legacy" content. If for any reason [1] is > inadequate for the purpose (and I'm not saying it is), then it should > improved accordingly. > > If the HTML WG took that small step of emphasizing use of [1] as the > correct reference for authors, I think it would have a significant > beneficial effect. Yes indeed. Another point is that while the 'official' WDs ([1], [2]) have the same date, the editor's drafts (http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/ and http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/ don't have the same dates (26 June 2012 for author-view, 28 September 2012 for the UI version) even if the author view says "This document is an automated redaction of the full HTML5 specification.". Maybe some of this automation could be improved? Or is there some manual or automatic detection that all the changes between 26 June and 28 September were on UI issues not affecting the author view? Regards, Martin. > Noah > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-author/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ > >
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 08:35:00 UTC