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

Re: If we have versioning, it should be in an attribute, not the doctype

From: Matthew Ratzloff <matt@builtfromsource.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51396.152.157.114.73.1176849387.squirrel@webmail.builtfromsource.com>
To: public-html@w3.org

On Tue, April 17, 2007 3:18 pm, Simon Pieters wrote:
> I did propose a version attribute a while back[1], but that was at the
> same time as I proposed to change the doctype to <!doctype html>. The
> previous doctype had "HTML5" in it, so I presumed that there was a need to
> include information about what version of HTML a document claimed itself
> to be (what I had in mind then was for validators), but as was pointed out
> that is not an issue. I am not in favor of versioning. My proposal to
> include a version attribute back then was not for the same reasons Chris
> Wilson stated at all.
>
> [1]
> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-February/005875.html

My apologies.  I didn't intend to misrepresent your position.

However, I will restate mine.  I feel that a version is necessary given
the fact that:

- Microsoft says it needs an explicit opt-in,
- 80% of the market uses Internet Explorer,
- Most pages serve unique content to Internet Explorer, and
- Microsoft will implement an unofficial opt-in whether or not one is
specified expressly.

Since we are "paving the cow paths" it seems to me that we must also pave
foreseeable future cow paths as well.  To that end, add a version
attribute and just be done with it.  Everyone else can ignore it.

-Matt
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:36:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:42 UTC