On Mon, 25 May 2009 14:54:39 +0200, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> If you think there are contradictions that are problematic, should >> they not be addressed as technical issues in their own right, rather >> than playing games around with the title? > > I do *NOT* like the characterization of "playing games". Please stop > that.
I have to admit I share this feeling with Maciej. I.e. I definitely get the feeling the argument is not about the title, but rather the contents of the document. >> Note that neither Roy nor Larry suggested that "contradictions with >> other specifications" was a reason to change the title. Rather, they do >> not like the things the spec specifies or the manner in which it does >> so. The argument that the title should be changed because there are >> contradictions with other specifications was, I believe, first >> presented in your emails just now. At first glance, it does not seem to >> me that changing the title would make such contradictions any more or >> less of a problem, so I'm not sure why you are making this argument. > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0430.html > > Roy stated that the title was "misleading", and continued with the > observation that it contains sections which "reinterpret HTTP". He also said "It is not HTML5 by any stretch of the imagination." and similar inflammatory remarks. Also, the chairs at that time decided it was ok to publish the document anyway so I think it was at least established that HTML 5 was an OK name to use. I.e. his objection was taken note of and a decision to continue with the chosen name was made. > The issue is not with the <h1>. Removing the subtitle would not address > the issue. Roy's issue was with the <h1> as far as I can tell. The subtitle was added a little later because some thought HTML 5 was not clear about the status of XHTML: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jan/0096.html > The current draft contains content sniffing for feeds. If accurately > describes uniform browser behavior. It reinterprets HTTP. It is not > part of a vocabulary. It is not part of associated API. It is planned to be splitted out and is a very minor part of the whole specification. It is also not specific to browsers as search engines, feed readers, etc. have to implement similar algorithms. I don't think everything needs to be called out in the title/subtitle. E.g. that rendering rules is defined is good, but there's no need to call that out there. Would it really help if we added to the subtitle that HTML5 deals with page load processing semantics as well? I'd be fine with adding something to that effect, but I've similar reservations to myakura: "title of #html5, wording in html-desing- principles, i keep wondering such small changes would make people interpret these any differently" https://twitter.com/myakura/status/1909112035 > If it weren't contentious, it wouldn't be an issue. It is contentious. > One way to address it is to remove the section. Another is to label > it properly. > > Removing accurate, but incomplete, labels does not address the issue. The section in question is clearly labeled, no? I.e. it notes what specifications it is in conflict with. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
