W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: Doctypes and the dialects of HTML 5

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:12:49 -0500
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Daniel Schattenkirchner <schattenkirchner.daniel@gmx.de>, public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <1175281969.4850.116.camel@dirk>

On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 22:40 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > 
> > When HTML6 comes out, but there are still HTML5 conformance checkers 
> > around, wouldn't you want to mark your HTML6 document as something that 
> > should not necessarily be expected to pass an HTML5 conformance checker?
> 
> No. Conformance checkers should say (like the W3C one does) what version 
> they are checking against. They should also offer different versions or 
> profiles to check against (e.g. "the subset supported by IE", "HTML5", 
> "HTML6"). But the version you check against is independent of the version 
> the document was authored for, and neither version belongs in the 
> document, IMHO.

The Web Architecture document suggests that it does belong there:

  "A data format specification SHOULD provide for version information."
  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#ext-version

But I don't see enough supporting argument there to convince me, in
this case, let alone for me to try to convince
you (and Lachlan Hunt, and ...) with it.

So I'm taking this up with the TAG:
should CSS, HTML, etc. documents bear version information?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Mar/0042.html

See also
  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#XMLVersioning-41



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 30 March 2007 19:12:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 30 March 2007 19:13:04 GMT