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

Re: mixed signals on "Writing HTML documents", tutorial, etc.

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:07:36 +0000 (UTC)
To: Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706190803530.8482@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Philip & Le Khanh wrote:
> How /can/ HTML 6 be "compatible" in the sense that a validator would
> understand the term? Either a document is HTML 5 or it is HTML 6
> (or it is something else); it cannot be both HTML 5 /and/ HTML 6 unless
> HTML 6 neither adds to, nor eliminates from, HTML 5, in which case
> there would be little if any reason to introduce it.

Why not?

The following:

     <title> Demo </title>
     <p> Hello! </p>

...is, modulo the DOCTYPE line, conformant to all versions of HTML ever 
made, as far as I know, going back at least to HTML2. Why would it not 
also be conformant to HTML5, HTML6, HTML7?

In fact, by removing the versioning information in the DOCTYPE, we remove 
the problem of the document _not_ being conformant to multiple versions 
at once. For example, all the HTML4 documents out there are not conforming 
HTML5, because they use a different DOCTYPE. But all the conforming HTML5 
documents will be conforming HTML6 documents, unless HTML6 fixes a bug in 
the HTML5 spec.

> And on the other hand, if these merits [of versioning] are so obvious to 
> you and I, why does the putative HTML 5 specification not already set an 
> appropriate precedent such as :
> at the very least ?

The merits _aren't_ obvious. The drawbacks are many, and serious, but the 
benefits seem slim and dubious. (This has been discussed to great lengths 
in this mailing list over the past months.)

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 08:07:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:22 UTC