On Mon, 06 May 2013 16:50:03 +0200, Jukka K. Korpela <[email protected]>
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
