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

Re: Versioning re-visited (was : mixed signals on "Writing HTML documents", tutorial, etc.)

From: Roger Johansson <roger@456bereastreet.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:48:29 +0200
Message-Id: <0769322E-E77F-4372-AF99-8C67E715B3BA@456bereastreet.com>
To: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>

On 21 jun 2007, at 17.57, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote:
> Yes, it might be helpful
> if the validator said (e.g.) "Although your document is
> valid HTML 2.0, it is not valid HTML 4.01 which is the current
> standard", but that is as far as I want it to go : I most
> certainly do /not/ want it to say (in effect) "I have ignored
> your DOCTYPE directive and am validating against the most
> recent version of the standard"

Agreed. The more I think about versioning, the less sense it makes to  
remove it.

>> 1. poor authoring practices should NOT sway or inform our decisions
> I for one am not the least bit interested in helping to design
> a markup language for those too lazy to think : authors who merely
> "copy-and-paste the boilerplate text" should /not/ be the target
> of our efforts;

Good to see I am not alone in having this opinion. I am yet to see a  
single acceptable argument for breaking or refusing to improve HTML  
because some people cannot be bothered to learn it.

> that are (a) maximally accessible (surely the first criterion),

Yes, that is my priority number one as well.


Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 16:48:42 UTC

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