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

Re: A Concrete Example for the HTML Versioning Debate

From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:20:17 -0500
Message-ID: <da131fde0704172320h5761ef8chf6db9039c03a63e4@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:43 UTC