On Fri, 03 May 2013 18:20:51 +0200, Jukka K. Korpela <[email protected]>
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
<[email protected]> 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
<[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
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
