[whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated
simonp at opera.com
Mon May 6 05:12:05 PDT 2013
On Fri, 03 May 2013 18:20:51 +0200, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela at cs.tut.fi>
> 2013-05-03 18:37, Simon Pieters wrote:
>> The past few days I've been working on updating the HTML differences
>> from HTML4 document, which is a deliverable of the W3C HTML WG but is
>> now also available as a version with the WHATWG style sheet:
> I think you should start from making the title sensible. "HTML
> differences from HTML4" is too esoteric even in this context.
Do you have a suggestion?
> Besides, the spelling is "HTML 4". Especially if you think HTML 4 is
> ancient history, retain the historical spelling.
I don't think this is of particular importance.
On Fri, 03 May 2013 20:10:58 +0200, Xaxio Brandish
<xaxiobrandish at gmail.com> wrote:
> The important thing (IMHO) to remember here regarding the title is that
> HTML released two subversions of HTML 4, HTML 4.0  and HTML 4.01 .
I don't see what's important about that, though.
> The document must be intended as a differentiation between the entire
> version of HTML4, since it does not specify a specific subversion to
> However, it links to the HTML 4.01 specification in the "References"
> section. If this is *only* a diff between HTML 4.01 and the living
> standard, perhaps the title should then be "HTML differences from HTML
> 4.01" so that the document has additional meaning. If there are
> differences between HTML 4.0, HTML 4.01, *and* HTML5 in the same section
> the document, those should probably be appropriately marked.
HTML 4.01 is intended. The differences between revisions of HTML4 is out
On Fri, 03 May 2013 20:53:21 +0200, Xaxio Brandish
<xaxiobrandish at gmail.com> wrote:
> I see what you're saying.
> The document title on the WHATWG site is titled based on the W3C document
> . However, I see no reason to keep the same title structure; it will
> easy to find either way.
The W3C version will have the same title.
> In that case, "Differences between HTML and HTML4" sounds nice as well.
That doesn't seem to address Jukka's concern.
> The only reservation I have is that the "from" preposition connotates
> HTML follows HTML4 (which it does, in a manner of speaking), whereas the
> "between" preposition implies a comparison among similar but equal ideas.
That suggests "from" is better. :-)
On Fri, 03 May 2013 21:17:34 +0200, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela at cs.tut.fi>
> 2013-05-03 21:19, Xaxio Brandish wrote:
>> Ah. The document scope  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".
It's mostly for readability. Noted in the document.
> "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".
"Modern HTML differences from HTML4"? I'm not convinced that's a win.
"Near-future" seems wrong since it's more like "current".
> 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.
Such a document would be useful, but it's not this document. The primary
focus for this document is what is different from HTML4.
More information about the whatwg