Re: Differences between the W3C and WHATWG specifications

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:46:05 +0200, Leif Halvard Silli  
<xn--mlform-iua@målform.no> wrote:
> Simon Pieters, Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:49:15 +0200:
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:14:17 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
>> <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>>> We've had this discussion before and in practice these TR/ snapshots
>>> turn out to waste quite a bit of time of engineers. I've seen it
>>> happen on multiple occasions at Opera and I'm sure it happens
>>> elsewhere too. Somehow they get to the TR/ version unknowingly a lot
>>> of the issues they encounter have already been fixed. Clearly
>>> pointing them in the right direction makes a lot of sense.
>
> Some questions have to be solved by the readers, and/or their employers.
>
>> I think it doesn't make a difference for engineers who end up at TR/
>> by google search if the History section strongly urges them to read
>> the latest version, since they will never read the History section.
>> To be effective, it should be clear where ever you end up in the TR/
>> that it's a snapshot and point to the latest version (without urging
>> or anything -- readers can decide for themselves if they want the
>> snapshot or the latest).
>>
>> I suggest there be a clearly visible but non-disturbing floating info
>> box on all pages in the TR/ version saying something like "This
>> document is a snapshot. The _latest editor's draft_ is also
>> available."
>
> CSS 2 has taken for years to get ready. But today it is a spec that one
> can more or less trust as having been implemented. An excellent side
> with HTML5, as well, is that the goal is that readers can trust it.
> Hints that one can look elsewhere, undermine that trust.

CSS 2.1 is a good example. We've had plenty of confusion there too with  
the TR/ version being hopelessly behind (and still is; lots of changes  
have been made since September 2009).


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 11:18:05 UTC