[whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated

[Xaxio Brandish]

>
> No, it only says *that* it uses "HTML" to refer to "the W3C HTML5
> specification, W3C HTML5.1 specification, and the WHATWG HTML standard".
> *Why* it does so is not addressed at all


You are correct.  The "why" is something that should be addressed.  Perhaps
the document could read:

This document covers the W3C HTML5 specification, W3C HTML5.1
> specification, and the WHATWG HTML standard. In order to simplify the
> readability of this document, these are referred to as if they were a
> single specification: "the HTML specification" or simply "HTML" when
> something applies equally to all of them; otherwise, they are called out
> explicitly.
>

The WHATWG differentiates, when necessary, by describing the constantly
evolving version of HTML as the "HTML Living Standard".  The "HTML" that
you describe is this HTML -- it does not refer to specific versions, but
the overall language as it stands currently.

The topical document is good to have as a learning tool, and to broaden the
understanding of when (and sometimes why) certain changes were made between
HTML and one of its previous subversions.

As the WHATWG specification [1] states,

There are numerous differences between this specification (the HTML Living
> Standard) and the W3C version, some minor, some major. Unfortunately these
> are not currently accurately documented anywhere, so there is no way to
> know which are intentional and which are not.
>

If you believe that documenting the (constantly evolving) differences
between HTML and its HTML5 and HTML5.1 subsets would be relevant, please do
so!  It would be a great thing to be able to reference such a document.

--Xaxio

References:
[1]
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/introduction.html#is-this-html5
?


On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela at cs.tut.fi>wrote:

> 2013-05-03 21:19, Xaxio Brandish wrote:
>
>  Ah.  The document scope [1] explains why it uses "HTML" in the title as
>> opposed to HTML5 or HTML(5).
>>
>
> No, it only says *that* it uses "HTML" to refer to "the W3C HTML5
> specification, W3C HTML5.1 specification, and the WHATWG HTML standard".
> *Why* it does so is not addressed at all, though the reader might infer
> that people just couldn't agree on a name, after WHATWG decided to abandon
> the name "HTML5".
>
> "HTML" has been used through the ages to denote a markup language (and
> associated definitions) in a broad sense, as opposite to specific versions.
> This is still the everyday meaning. And a title of a work should be
> understandable without reading some explanation inside it, saying that some
> common term has an uncommon meaning.
>
> If you can't agree on a proper name, at least call it something like
> "modern HTML". Or, perhaps more realistically, "near-future HTML".
>
> It's not clear to me why the document is needed in the first place. It
> would seem to be much more relevant to document in detail the differences
> between HTML 5, HTML 5.1, and WHATWG Living HTML than to write a rather
> general document about the differences between them (as if they were a
> single and stabile specification) and HTML 4.
>
> Yucca
>
>
>