W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Intent to Conform (was Re: Version information)

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:06:14 +0900
Message-ID: <461DDA66.3050201@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Chris Wilson schreef:
> All,
>         I need to detail an essay about compatibility and opt-in to explain the Microsoft viewpoint on this.  I have a few things on my plate I must do today, so it will probably take a day or two.  I'm going to likely be silent until then on this topic.

I wonder how much merit it has to discuss/decide this now; isn’t the 
necessity of this depending on the output of this working group and the 
opinion of implementors on the feasibility to implement it without 
breaking current pages? Assuming on beforehand the spec will never be 
able to define HTML5 in a way that doesn’t break existing pages is I 
think premature. We should try our best to achieve this, and if in the 
end that turns out to be impossible, then we can introduce a version 
number after all.

You mentioned HTML6; if HTML6 is not interoperable without breaking 
backwards compatibility, a version switch can be added in HTML6. Saying 
that HTML5 won’t have versioning information does I think not prevent 
future specifications from not having any.

Plus that I (as stated earlier) don’t think that 
per-specification-versioning is very useful, what you would really need 
is per-user-agent versioning.


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.


Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 07:08:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:53 GMT