HTML5 Tutorial efforts

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

HTML5 Tutorial efforts

Karl Dubost


Le 23 mai 2007 à 00:06, Debi Orton a écrit :
> Karl, if we can identify non-controversial aspects of the present  
> HTML 5 draft, I'd be glad to start now.  Is there any clear way to  
> make that distinction?

I think the most beneficial part of the specifications for authors is  
for now.
[3. Semantics and structure of HTML elements][1]. It would be good to  
break into pieces.

So we need first a template. There are, at least, two ways of  
proceeding for this kind of things and they are not mutually exclusive.

1. Going through the list of names and explain their meanings with  
examples and best practices. (a, b, blockquote, etc. )
2. Talking about semantics as large and how to achieve things.  
(paragraphs, lists, tables, forms, etc.)

What do people prefer to work on? As I would much like that we get  
things done more than imposing something that people do not like.




[1]: http://tinyurl.com/397b7t
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/spec/Overview.html?content- 
type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1#semantics

--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HTML5 Tutorial efforts

Debi Orton-2

At 08:46 PM 6/3/2007, Karl Dubost wrote:

>Le 23 mai 2007 à 00:06, Debi Orton a écrit :
>>Karl, if we can identify non-controversial aspects of the present
>>HTML 5 draft, I'd be glad to start now.  Is there any clear way to
>>make that distinction?
>
>I think the most beneficial part of the specifications for authors is
>for now.
>[3. Semantics and structure of HTML elements][1]. It would be good to
>break into pieces.
>
>So we need first a template. There are, at least, two ways of
>proceeding for this kind of things and they are not mutually exclusive.
>
>1. Going through the list of names and explain their meanings with
>examples and best practices. (a, b, blockquote, etc. )
>2. Talking about semantics as large and how to achieve things.
>(paragraphs, lists, tables, forms, etc.)
>
>What do people prefer to work on? As I would much like that we get
>things done more than imposing something that people do not like.
I agree.  I do not think the two approaches are
mutually exclusive, but the concepts can
reinforce each other.  I'd be glad to start with #1.

Dan described an approach of going through
section by section.  Is that how you're suggesting we proceed?

Debi Orton / [hidden email]