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: Dannii <curiousdannii@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:48:09 +1000
Message-ID: <af3e73120706230148t21947fadwe42b3f811ee1eb29@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
This seems to be a good position to have. I'm not sure if there are any
situations where versioning would be useful to me, but having the option to
would be good.

I have a problem with what some have suggested however, which is enforced
versioning. If there is versioning, the question must be asked as to what to
do with unversioned documents. I think Chris Wilson said that IE will
forever treat unversioned documents as whatever IE8 supports, which will
likely be an incomplete implementation of HTML5, even if IE9 or later
supports the whole of HTML5 or 6 or 7 or whatever. I don't think this is
acceptable, if a document is unversioned, it should be interpreted as the
latest version of HTML an implementation supports.

Btw, what happened to the bugmode idea? No one in favour of it anymore?

On 6/23/07, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Although I intend to address some specific points in
> a future message, I think it might help to summarise
> my position in as few words as possible :
>
>         "If we /provide/ version information, we allow
>          others to make use of it if they so choose.
>
>          If we /omit/ version information, we prevent
>          others from making use of it."
>
> Philip Taylor
>
Received on Saturday, 23 June 2007 08:48:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:45 UTC