- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 01:36:36 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8979 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Comment #2 from Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> 2010-05-03 01:36:36 --- EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: No change necessary. Rationale: There is nothing about the definition of the @version attribute that would preclude HTML6 from defining a compatible version of the attribute in the future. WHAT WG and HTML WG seem to have asserted that they are not interested in pursuing "document versioning" in the past - has this changed? Furthermore, @version is already defined and is in active use for XHTML+RDFa 1.0 - it already exists and is being used, so removing it from HTML+RDFa does nothing to change the state of published documents on the web that may be interpreted using HTML5. If the HTML WG would like to specify the @version attribute format, then it should do so in HTML5. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 3 May 2010 01:36:38 UTC