- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 03:23:18 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Sep 27, 2009, at 2:45 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> ... >> More generally, I don't think it makes sense to require HTML5 to >> use words with multiple meanings as technical terms in the exact >> same way as dependency specifications. There are too many >> dependencies, and they use words in different ways. I would only be >> concerned if there is actual confusion (as opposed to the purely >> hypothetical confusion in this case). >> ... > > Not sure what counts as "dependency" specification. I'm ready to > believe that HTML5 currently references other specs that get this > wrong, too. But what's relevant here are the specs that define the > term. To give a specific example, Unicode, ECMAScript and CSS all define the term "property" in completely different ways. And HTML5 adds yet another distinct definition in a different context. As far as I'm concerned, this is not a problem, because it's always clear what is meant. Another example: RFC3986 has a different (much more general) definition of "resource" than the HTTP RFC. > Furthermore, as explained earlier, HTML5 is inconsistent in itself; > and that's something that should be fixed. If "Foobar" is the thing > identified by a URL (HTML5) then it simply can't be a bag-of-bits at > the same time. Natural language is context-sensitive. I don't think any actual confusion is caused. Regards, Maciej
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 10:24:02 UTC