Re: A Concrete Example for the HTML Versioning Debate

On 4/18/07, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:07:46 +1000, Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Jeff Schiller wrote:
> >> > And even if you can be reasonably confident - what is the harm in
> >> > introducing a "5" into the DOCTYPE somewhere?
> >>
> >> It encourages people to think of HTML as a versioned specification,
> >
> > HTML is a versioned specification.
>
> I think he meant versioned language.
>

Isn't HTML a versioned language?  HTML 3.2 is different than HTML
4.01, isn't it?

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 06:20:18 UTC