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: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:17:23 +0900
Message-Id: <CA5325A0-11F5-4881-B4F9-59793EBA9C86@w3.org>
To: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>


Le 22 juin 2007 à 05:26, Ian Hickson a écrit :
> What help is it to tell the author
> that his misguided (but previously compliant) use of the compact=""
> attribute on the <ul> element is still compliant, when almost no  
> browser
> implements it and when it's been dropped from the specs?

And what is happening when someone looks at HTML 4.01 Specification  
and thinks, I want to create a product which implements this feature.
Or I want to create a converter which helps me to move my document  
from version X to version Y.

Here you are forgetting that some people have written documents  
knowing what they were doing.

> Whether historical documents are compliant to their contemporary  
> versions
> of the specs is of academic interest only. What matters is whether  
> they
> are compliant _today_.

This is where part of the conflict lies.

* Some people will see from a document perspective
* Some people will see from an application perspective.

Weaving a metaphor.

Document perspective:
A document written by Shakespeare has a version number. It is call  
the date and the cultural location. It has been written. Part of the  
language written inside is understandable only because you have a  
dictionary (or knowledge) of that time. Because semantics and usage  
of words evolve.

Application perspective:
This same document by Shakespeare has been written with characters, I  
guess first on paper with ink and hand-written. With a series of  
discussion with the publisher, it finally came into a more formatted  
version (print characters) which makes it easier to read and  
reproduce for people who are not in contact with Shakespeare. Today  
the application have changed from block letters, to laser printing,  
to digital consumption.

The same text is still *readable* (application) because of the  block  
letters codification BUT it is not necessary *understandable*  
(document) if you don't have the appropriate dictionary of this time  
(version).


-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 02:17:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:01 GMT