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: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:39:52 +0200
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F33E41A5-5B87-440B-B070-78348D5E93C7@berjon.com>
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
On Aug 12, 2010, at 19:41 , Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Aug 12, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I find it incredible that such a large group of people can manage
> to make identical "strong objections" based on an argument that
> only holds true if browsers are the only consumers of HTML.
> For all other consumers and producers, every objection made in
> that poll is demonstrably false.  The problem is that none of
> the other implementors of HTML bother to participate here because
> their requirements are routinely ignored.

My argument very definitely does not come from any manner of browser-oriented point of view. My background here is entirely in robust processing of evolving vocabularies (typically XML) in situations that don't even remotely involve a browser. I have seen no convincing argument that what applies to the processing of XML would not apply equally to HTML, whether in a browser context or not.

Speaking of arguments, since you seem to disagree with the stated objections and since you claim that every objection in this poll is "demonstrably false" why not bring forward said demonstration? I'd be thrilled to see proof of its existence as life would indeed be a lot simpler if version indicators provided a usable solution to versioning problems.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 12:40:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 August 2010 12:40:28 GMT