- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:27:21 -0400
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- CC: W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
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. Noah [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-author/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 20:27:43 UTC