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

Re: A Concrete Example for the HTML Versioning Debate

From: Andrew Sidwell <takkaria@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:55:21 +0100
Message-ID: <4625DCF9.6070507@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org

Jeff Schiller wrote:
> 
> 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?

No, it's not.  You can use HTML 4 tags in HTML 3.2 documents; similarly,
you will be able to use HTML5 tags in HTML4 documents.  The idea here is
that browsers use the same code to parse and render all versions of HTML
(with some changes based on quirks vs. standards mode).

Andrew Sidwell
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 09:13:55 UTC

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