W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2010

Re: ISSUE-4: html-versioning / ISSUE-84: legacy-doctypes - Straw Poll for Objections

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:55:17 +0200
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8C2C8C62-BDC0-4D21-94E1-A72E3FE4E6EE@berjon.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:02 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> The poll is available here, and it will run through Friday, July 30th:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issues-4-84-objection-poll/
> 
> Please read the introductory text before entering your response.
> 
> In particular, keep in mind that you don't *have* to reply. You only need to do so if you feel your objection to one of the options is truly strong, and has not been adequately addressed by a clearly marked objection contained within a Change Proposal or by someone else's objection. The Chairs will be looking at strength of objections, and will not be counting votes.

I was on vacation while this poll was open, but I wanted to register my strong objection to the addition of a versioning indicator of any kind. It is an approach that with respect I can only deem na´ve and that adds complexity without addressing the issue of compatible behaviour across change.

I have covered the topic previously, going into some lengths to describe architectural issues with version indicators as part of a discussion with the TAG in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0116.html, as well as in a lighterweight description that ends with a decision tree about the cases in which you need a version indicator at http://berjon.com/blog/2009/12/xmlbp-naive-versioning.html.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 12:56:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 12 August 2010 12:56:06 GMT