[whatwg] WA 1.0 and WF 2

[Ian Hickson]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, ROBO Design wrote:
> 
> I took a closer look into the source code of both of the specifications. 
> Interestingly, you don't use XHTML 1.0 strict, you stick to valid HTML 
> 4.01 Strict (no </html> !).

Yes. (Note that the </html> tag is optional, but its absence is an 
artefact of the tools I use to generate the spec).


> Now ... both of the specs contain some of your notes, commented at the end.

Right, the WF2 spec contains the WF3 wishlist at the end, and the WA1 spec 
contains notes all over the place.


> I'm sure this is useful for you while writing the specs, but WF 2 Final 
> shouldn't have any personal comments at the end of the document (about 
> future versions). Same applies to WA 1.0 near finalisation.

Why not? People have found the WF3 notes useful. I agree they shouldn't be 
visible, but what's wrong with having them as comments?


> Another suggestion would be ... split the WA 1.0 specification in 
> multiple pages, one for each main section. Reason: the spec is already 
> about 800kb and still has many section TBW. It's too big to load all at 
> once :). I like the way W3C did with CSS 2 and some other specs (even if 
> they also have some huge specs in a single file, like VoiceXML 2).

I might provide a split version in due course but it would be a lot of 
work so I'm not planning on doing it any time soon. I'd rather cut 
features out, to be honest.


> Last, but not least, please let us know about the advantages of using 
> lang="en-GB-hixie". I'm really curious about the reason for doing so. Do 
> you recommend I use lang="en-robodesign" (and "ro-robodesign") on my 
> site :) ?

As others have indicated, there's a spec for that language code. :-) But 
it's mostly for fun.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'