Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
On Tue, 07 May 2013 16:37:21 +0200, Gordon P. Hemsley gphems...@gmail.com wrote: Simon, I think it would be good to consider the target audiences, of which there are probably many: You have the audience who is worried that HTML5 is some grand departure from the HTML 4.01 they (think they) know and love. For them, you'll want to describe what exactly has been removed and why, instilling the idea of a separation between semantic and presentational markup. Then you have the audience that is excited to see what they can do now with HTML5 that they couldn't do with HTML 4.01. For them, you'd list the new elements and attributes and such. Then you probably have some other incidentals such as things that were removed or changed just because they were never implemented or people never used them. These probably don't fall into either of the two categories above. But you also have another issue to consider: For this document, the difference between the W3C's concept of specification snapshots and WHATWG's concept of a living standard is not trivial. For the former, you can have snapshot documents detailing the differences between each snapshot specification; for the latter, you need a living document that is anchored by a fixed point at one end (HTML 4.01). This raises the question of the purpose of this document: Is it to simplify the transition from HTML 4.01 to HTML5+? Or is it to act as an HTML changelog from here on out? Because I think attempting to do both within a single document will become unwieldy as time goes on. Thanks. I've tried to make it a bit more focused by having one document that compares WHATWG HTML to HTML4 and a separate document that compares W3C HTML5 to HTML4, dropped W3C HTML 5.1 (covered by http://www.w3.org/html/landscape/ ) and dropped the Changes (covered by http://platform.html5.org/history/ ). https://github.com/whatwg/html-differences/commit/a34fa020d2e2c17bb84fe963dc3f8de2250c31c4 https://github.com/whatwg/html-differences/commit/06499f22bcfd5f72ac1e7b3f3f3e4863e2db9c0b -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
On Wed, 08 May 2013 03:36:51 +0200, Jens O. Meiert j...@meiert.com wrote: I understand the amount of space it takes. I still don't understand what the problem is. Is it that people look at the scrollbar and think oh wow this document is too long, I'm not gonna bother reading it at all.? Or something else? That is one scenario which could have an effect on how many people actually read the document. It is a particular nuisance for print; it is also one on mobile. With neither being high per se, I suggest the cost of problem is higher than the cost of solution, and I thus hope this is worth addressing. I don’t have anything else to add :) I've removed the Changes section now. Redundant with http://platform.html5.org/history/ https://github.com/whatwg/html-differences/commit/06499f22bcfd5f72ac1e7b3f3f3e4863e2db9c0b -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
On Tue, 07 May 2013 05:49:39 +0200, Jens O. Meiert j...@meiert.com wrote: This document doesn't have versions (anymore). Is the length of that section a problem? Yes. It’s probably a lesser important part of the document but it appears to take up about half of the space (or blows the document up to double its size, respectively). I understand the amount of space it takes. I still don't understand what the problem is. Is it that people look at the scrollbar and think oh wow this document is too long, I'm not gonna bother reading it at all.? Or something else? -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
On Mon, 06 May 2013 16:50:03 +0200, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi wrote: I don't think this is of particular importance. If it isn't, why not use the correct spelling? Mostly to be consistent with HTML5. When referring to specifications, it is usually a good idea to use their own spelling, even when it is odd and confusing. HTML 4.01 is intended. The differences between revisions of HTML4 is out of scope. Then the heading should say HTML 4.01. It's longer, and it's not clear to me that people are actually confused about what HTML4 refers to. Modern HTML differences from HTML4? I'm not convinced that's a win. Near-future seems wrong since it's more like current. The difficulty here directly reflects the vague nature of HTML5: it partly tries to describe HTML as actually implemented and partly specifies features that should (or shall) be implemented. Hence it is both modern and (intended to be) near-future. But the fundamental difficulty is that you are trying to describe a specific version, or set of versions, of HTML without giving it a proper name or version number. Since WHATWG does not use a proper name for its version (the title is just HTML), I think the only way to refer to it properly is to prefix it with WHATWG. This would lead to the title Differences of HTML5 and WHATWG HTML from HTML 4.01 Here HTML5 is supposed to refer to W3C HTML5 and W3C HTML5.1? How about I go back to the original title Differences from HTML4? http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Differences_from_HTML4 Such a document would be useful, but it's not this document. The primary focus for this document is what is different from HTML4. But why? What is the purpose of this document? This is relevant to naming it, and to the content too, of course. Now it is neither a reliable comparison with links the relevant clauses nor an overview - it has too many details, to begin with. It's more intended to be an overview. Can you give an example of something that is too detailed and suggest the level of detail that would be more appropriate? Is this for authors who consider moving from HTML 4.01 to HTML 5? Yes. Then I think it should primarily specify what HTML 4.01 features are forbidden in HTML 5, then the extensions. Thanks, that's useful feedback. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
(13/05/07 17:00), Simon Pieters wrote: Since WHATWG does not use a proper name for its version (the title is just HTML), I think the only way to refer to it properly is to prefix it with WHATWG. This would lead to the title Differences of HTML5 and WHATWG HTML from HTML 4.01 Here HTML5 is supposed to refer to W3C HTML5 and W3C HTML5.1? Seems so. Is there a concern here? How about I go back to the original title Differences from HTML4? http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Differences_from_HTML4 Or perhaps Changes, News Features, and Fixes from HTML4 ? (/me is looking at GCC release note) Or * Differences of W3C HTML5/WHATWG HTML from HTML4 * Differences of WHATWG HTML/W3C HTML5 from HTML4 * HTML5 differences from HTML4 (the W3C title) Anyway, I agree that HTML differences from HTML4 sounds confusing and any of the above is better. Cheers, Kenny -- Web Specialist, Opera Sphinx Game Force, Oupeng Browser, Beijing Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
On Tue, 07 May 2013 11:52:46 +0200, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu kangh...@oupeng.com wrote: Differences of HTML5 and WHATWG HTML from HTML 4.01 Here HTML5 is supposed to refer to W3C HTML5 and W3C HTML5.1? Seems so. Is there a concern here? Well, HTML5 could refer to just HTML5... How about I go back to the original title Differences from HTML4? http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Differences_from_HTML4 Or perhaps Changes, News Features, and Fixes from HTML4 ? (/me is looking at GCC release note) That also omits the name of the new thing, which might be a good idea. Or * Differences of W3C HTML5/WHATWG HTML from HTML4 * Differences of WHATWG HTML/W3C HTML5 from HTML4 * HTML5 differences from HTML4 (the W3C title) Anyway, I agree that HTML differences from HTML4 sounds confusing and any of the above is better. OK, I've changed it to Differences from HTML4. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
Simon, I think it would be good to consider the target audiences, of which there are probably many: You have the audience who is worried that HTML5 is some grand departure from the HTML 4.01 they (think they) know and love. For them, you'll want to describe what exactly has been removed and why, instilling the idea of a separation between semantic and presentational markup. Then you have the audience that is excited to see what they can do now with HTML5 that they couldn't do with HTML 4.01. For them, you'd list the new elements and attributes and such. Then you probably have some other incidentals such as things that were removed or changed just because they were never implemented or people never used them. These probably don't fall into either of the two categories above. But you also have another issue to consider: For this document, the difference between the W3C's concept of specification snapshots and WHATWG's concept of a living standard is not trivial. For the former, you can have snapshot documents detailing the differences between each snapshot specification; for the latter, you need a living document that is anchored by a fixed point at one end (HTML 4.01). This raises the question of the purpose of this document: Is it to simplify the transition from HTML 4.01 to HTML5+? Or is it to act as an HTML changelog from here on out? Because I think attempting to do both within a single document will become unwieldy as time goes on. Regards, Gordon On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote: On Mon, 06 May 2013 16:50:03 +0200, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi wrote: I don't think this is of particular importance. If it isn't, why not use the correct spelling? Mostly to be consistent with HTML5. When referring to specifications, it is usually a good idea to use their own spelling, even when it is odd and confusing. HTML 4.01 is intended. The differences between revisions of HTML4 is out of scope. Then the heading should say HTML 4.01. It's longer, and it's not clear to me that people are actually confused about what HTML4 refers to. Modern HTML differences from HTML4? I'm not convinced that's a win. Near-future seems wrong since it's more like current. The difficulty here directly reflects the vague nature of HTML5: it partly tries to describe HTML as actually implemented and partly specifies features that should (or shall) be implemented. Hence it is both modern and (intended to be) near-future. But the fundamental difficulty is that you are trying to describe a specific version, or set of versions, of HTML without giving it a proper name or version number. Since WHATWG does not use a proper name for its version (the title is just HTML), I think the only way to refer to it properly is to prefix it with WHATWG. This would lead to the title Differences of HTML5 and WHATWG HTML from HTML 4.01 Here HTML5 is supposed to refer to W3C HTML5 and W3C HTML5.1? How about I go back to the original title Differences from HTML4? http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Differences_from_HTML4 Such a document would be useful, but it's not this document. The primary focus for this document is what is different from HTML4. But why? What is the purpose of this document? This is relevant to naming it, and to the content too, of course. Now it is neither a reliable comparison with links the relevant clauses nor an overview - it has too many details, to begin with. It's more intended to be an overview. Can you give an example of something that is too detailed and suggest the level of detail that would be more appropriate? Is this for authors who consider moving from HTML 4.01 to HTML 5? Yes. Then I think it should primarily specify what HTML 4.01 features are forbidden in HTML 5, then the extensions. Thanks, that's useful feedback. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software -- Gordon P. Hemsley m...@gphemsley.org http://gphemsley.org/ • http://gphemsley.org/blog/
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
I understand the amount of space it takes. I still don't understand what the problem is. Is it that people look at the scrollbar and think oh wow this document is too long, I'm not gonna bother reading it at all.? Or something else? That is one scenario which could have an effect on how many people actually read the document. It is a particular nuisance for print; it is also one on mobile. With neither being high per se, I suggest the cost of problem is higher than the cost of solution, and I thus hope this is worth addressing. I don’t have anything else to add :) -- Jens O. Meiert http://meiert.com/en/
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
On Fri, 03 May 2013 18:20:51 +0200, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@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/ I think you should start from making the title sensible. HTML differences from HTML4 is too esoteric even in this context. Do you have a suggestion? Besides, the spelling is HTML 4. Especially if you think HTML 4 is ancient history, retain the historical spelling. I don't think this is of particular importance. On Fri, 03 May 2013 20:10:58 +0200, Xaxio Brandish xaxiobrand...@gmail.com wrote: 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]. Three, actually. I don't see what's important about that, though. 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. HTML 4.01 is intended. The differences between revisions of HTML4 is out of scope. On Fri, 03 May 2013 20:53:21 +0200, Xaxio Brandish xaxiobrand...@gmail.com wrote: I see what you're saying. The document title on the WHATWG site is titled based on the W3C document [1]. However, I see no reason to keep the same title structure; it will be easy to find either way. The W3C version will have the same title. In that case, Differences between HTML and HTML4 sounds nice as well. That doesn't seem to address Jukka's concern. The only reservation I have is that the from preposition connotates that HTML follows HTML4 (which it does, in a manner of speaking), whereas the between preposition implies a comparison among similar but equal ideas. That suggests from is better. :-) On Fri, 03 May 2013 21:17:34 +0200, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi wrote: 2013-05-03 21:19, Xaxio Brandish wrote: Ah. The document scope [1] explains why it uses HTML in the title as opposed to HTML5 or HTML(5). No, it only says *that* it uses HTML to refer to the W3C HTML5 specification, W3C HTML5.1 specification, and the WHATWG HTML standard. *Why* it does so is not addressed at all, though the reader might infer that people just couldn't agree on a name, after WHATWG decided to abandon the name HTML5. It's mostly for readability. Noted in the document. HTML has been used through the ages to denote a markup language (and associated definitions) in a broad sense, as opposite to specific versions. This is still the everyday meaning. And a title of a work should be understandable without reading some explanation inside it, saying that some common term has an uncommon meaning. If you can't agree on a proper name, at least call it something like modern HTML. Or, perhaps more realistically, near-future HTML. Modern HTML differences from HTML4? I'm not convinced that's a win. Near-future seems wrong since it's more like current. It's not clear to me why the document is needed in the first place. It would seem to be much more relevant to document in detail the differences between HTML 5, HTML 5.1, and WHATWG Living HTML than to write a rather general document about the differences between them (as if they were a single and stabile specification) and HTML 4. Such a document would be useful, but it's not this document. The primary focus for this document is what is different from HTML4. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
On Sat, 04 May 2013 00:21:18 +0200, Jens O. Meiert j...@meiert.com wrote: http://html-differences.whatwg.org/ Thanks Simon! Unrelated to the rest of the conversation, could we reconsider whether every version of this document needs to list *all* document-internal changes, in section 6? I’d argue it suffices to list the changes to the last version of the document. This keeps the document length at bay while it’s still possible for people who are actually interested in all changes to go back and check for them. This document doesn't have versions (anymore). Is the length of that section a problem? -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
2013-05-06 15:12, Simon Pieters wrote: I think you should start from making the title sensible. HTML differences from HTML4 is too esoteric even in this context. Do you have a suggestion? I made some suggestions, which you comment later, but I will make another one here. Besides, the spelling is HTML 4. Especially if you think HTML 4 is ancient history, retain the historical spelling. I don't think this is of particular importance. If it isn't, why not use the correct spelling? When referring to specifications, it is usually a good idea to use their own spelling, even when it is odd and confusing. HTML 4.01 is intended. The differences between revisions of HTML4 is out of scope. Then the heading should say HTML 4.01. HTML has been used through the ages to denote a markup language (and associated definitions) in a broad sense, as opposite to specific versions. This is still the everyday meaning. And a title of a work should be understandable without reading some explanation inside it, saying that some common term has an uncommon meaning. If you can't agree on a proper name, at least call it something like modern HTML. Or, perhaps more realistically, near-future HTML. Modern HTML differences from HTML4? I'm not convinced that's a win. Near-future seems wrong since it's more like current. The difficulty here directly reflects the vague nature of HTML5: it partly tries to describe HTML as actually implemented and partly specifies features that should (or shall) be implemented. Hence it is both modern and (intended to be) near-future. But the fundamental difficulty is that you are trying to describe a specific version, or set of versions, of HTML without giving it a proper name or version number. Since WHATWG does not use a proper name for its version (the title is just HTML), I think the only way to refer to it properly is to prefix it with WHATWG. This would lead to the title Differences of HTML5 and WHATWG HTML from HTML 4.01 It's not clear to me why the document is needed in the first place. It would seem to be much more relevant to document in detail the differences between HTML 5, HTML 5.1, and WHATWG Living HTML than to write a rather general document about the differences between them (as if they were a single and stabile specification) and HTML 4. Such a document would be useful, but it's not this document. The primary focus for this document is what is different from HTML4. But why? What is the purpose of this document? This is relevant to naming it, and to the content too, of course. Now it is neither a reliable comparison with links the relevant clauses nor an overview - it has too many details, to begin with. Is this for authors who consider moving from HTML 4.01 to HTML 5? Then I think it should primarily specify what HTML 4.01 features are forbidden in HTML 5, then the extensions. Yucca
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
Unrelated to the rest of the conversation, could we reconsider whether every version of this document needs to list *all* document-internal changes, in section 6? This document doesn't have versions (anymore). Is the length of that section a problem? Yes. It’s probably a lesser important part of the document but it appears to take up about half of the space (or blows the document up to double its size, respectively). -- Jens O. Meiert http://meiert.com/en/
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
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/ 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
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
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 jkorp...@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
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
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 xaxiobrand...@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 jkorp...@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 m...@gphemsley.org http://gphemsley.org/ • http://gphemsley.org/blog/
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 gphems...@gmail.comwrote: 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 xaxiobrand...@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 jkorp...@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 m...@gphemsley.org http://gphemsley.org/ • http://gphemsley.org/blog/
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 xaxiobrand...@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 gphems...@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 xaxiobrand...@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 jkorp...@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 m...@gphemsley.org http://gphemsley.org/ • http://gphemsley.org/blog/ -- Gordon P. Hemsley m...@gphemsley.org http://gphemsley.org/ • http://gphemsley.org/blog/
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
I see what you're saying. The document title on the WHATWG site is titled based on the W3C document [1]. However, I see no reason to keep the same title structure; it will be easy to find either way. In that case, Differences between HTML and HTML4 sounds nice as well. The only reservation I have is that the from preposition connotates that HTML follows HTML4 (which it does, in a manner of speaking), whereas the between preposition implies a comparison among similar but equal ideas. --Xaxio References: [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/ On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Gordon P. Hemsley gphems...@gmail.comwrote: 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 xaxiobrand...@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 gphems...@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 xaxiobrand...@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 jkorp...@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 m...@gphemsley.org http://gphemsley.org/ • http://gphemsley.org/blog/ -- Gordon P. Hemsley m...@gphemsley.org http://gphemsley.org/ • http://gphemsley.org/blog/
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
2013-05-03 21:19, Xaxio Brandish wrote: Ah. The document scope [1] explains why it uses HTML in the title as opposed to HTML5 or HTML(5). No, it only says *that* it uses HTML to refer to the W3C HTML5 specification, W3C HTML5.1 specification, and the WHATWG HTML standard. *Why* it does so is not addressed at all, though the reader might infer that people just couldn't agree on a name, after WHATWG decided to abandon the name HTML5. HTML has been used through the ages to denote a markup language (and associated definitions) in a broad sense, as opposite to specific versions. This is still the everyday meaning. And a title of a work should be understandable without reading some explanation inside it, saying that some common term has an uncommon meaning. If you can't agree on a proper name, at least call it something like modern HTML. Or, perhaps more realistically, near-future HTML. It's not clear to me why the document is needed in the first place. It would seem to be much more relevant to document in detail the differences between HTML 5, HTML 5.1, and WHATWG Living HTML than to write a rather general document about the differences between them (as if they were a single and stabile specification) and HTML 4. Yucca
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
No, it only says *that* it uses HTML to refer to the W3C HTML5 specification, W3C HTML5.1 specification, and the WHATWG HTML standard. *Why* it does so is not addressed at all You are correct. The why is something that should be addressed. Perhaps the document could read: This document covers the W3C HTML5 specification, W3C HTML5.1 specification, and the WHATWG HTML standard. In order to simplify the readability of this document, these are referred to as if they were a single specification: the HTML specification or simply HTML when something applies equally to all of them; otherwise, they are called out explicitly. The WHATWG differentiates, when necessary, by describing the constantly evolving version of HTML as the HTML Living Standard. The HTML that you describe is this HTML -- it does not refer to specific versions, but the overall language as it stands currently. The topical document is good to have as a learning tool, and to broaden the understanding of when (and sometimes why) certain changes were made between HTML and one of its previous subversions. As the WHATWG specification [1] states, There are numerous differences between this specification (the HTML Living Standard) and the W3C version, some minor, some major. Unfortunately these are not currently accurately documented anywhere, so there is no way to know which are intentional and which are not. If you believe that documenting the (constantly evolving) differences between HTML and its HTML5 and HTML5.1 subsets would be relevant, please do so! It would be a great thing to be able to reference such a document. --Xaxio References: [1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/introduction.html#is-this-html5 ? On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fiwrote: 2013-05-03 21:19, Xaxio Brandish wrote: Ah. The document scope [1] explains why it uses HTML in the title as opposed to HTML5 or HTML(5). No, it only says *that* it uses HTML to refer to the W3C HTML5 specification, W3C HTML5.1 specification, and the WHATWG HTML standard. *Why* it does so is not addressed at all, though the reader might infer that people just couldn't agree on a name, after WHATWG decided to abandon the name HTML5. HTML has been used through the ages to denote a markup language (and associated definitions) in a broad sense, as opposite to specific versions. This is still the everyday meaning. And a title of a work should be understandable without reading some explanation inside it, saying that some common term has an uncommon meaning. If you can't agree on a proper name, at least call it something like modern HTML. Or, perhaps more realistically, near-future HTML. It's not clear to me why the document is needed in the first place. It would seem to be much more relevant to document in detail the differences between HTML 5, HTML 5.1, and WHATWG Living HTML than to write a rather general document about the differences between them (as if they were a single and stabile specification) and HTML 4. Yucca
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
Xaxio wrote: If you believe that documenting the (constantly evolving) differences between HTML and its HTML5 and HTML5.1 subsets would be relevant, please do so! It would be a great thing to be able to reference such a document. I have made a start on a document http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/W3C-WHATWG-Differences -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/
Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
http://html-differences.whatwg.org/ Thanks Simon! Unrelated to the rest of the conversation, could we reconsider whether every version of this document needs to list *all* document-internal changes, in section 6? I’d argue it suffices to list the changes to the last version of the document. This keeps the document length at bay while it’s still possible for people who are actually interested in all changes to go back and check for them. Cheers, Jens. -- Jens O. Meiert http://meiert.com/en/
