W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

RE: Note in HTML4 spec about html5?

From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:33:02 +0000
To: 'Charles McCathieNevile' <chaals@opera.com>, Jace Voracek <jacevoracek@me.com>, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52F8A45B68FD784E8E4FEE4DA9C6E52A348CF860@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
>I think the "latest version" should point to a document which explains the family
>of HTML specifications W3C makes available, and points to the different ones
>with useful identifiers. And that the stable, historical, and for many purposes out-
>of-date versions should be republished with a clear pointer to such a page, which
>needs some maintenance from time to time...

The note in the " stable, historical, and for many purposes out-of-date versions" is what I was asking for.  Something that recognizes that these very old and out of date Recommendations are likely not what someone wants to use in creating content.

Would the chairs ask the WG if there are any objections to that?

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:chaals@opera.com]
>Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:03 AM
>To: Jace Voracek; David Carlisle
>Cc: public-html@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Note in HTML4 spec about html5?
>
>On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:06:51 +0100, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> On 12/03/2012 15:54, Jace Voracek wrote:
>>  > I understand, as you
>>> mentioned, how that can be confusing for one searching for the latest
>>> HTML recommendation. Forwarding http://www.w3.org/TR/html to
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5 would make the original XHTML 1.0
>>> specification unaccessible,
>>
>> No it would still be available at the rather more natural
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/

>>
>> which is the one listed at in the front matter of the document.
>
>The question is a bit double-headed. On the one hand, what do I find at the end
>of http://www.w3.org/TR/html or .../html5 or .../html4 or /xhtml ...?
>
>On the other hand, if I want to use HTML, how do I find out what people are
>using today?
>
>Note that each draft of the specification has a specific ID like
>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-HTML-401-19991224 (for editor's drafts cvs the URL
>looks a lot messier, but it can still be used to point to a specific stable reference).
>
>If people are looking for HTML, they might want to know that the world really
>*uses* HTML5, by and large. While they might want to know that, they might
>also want to find the actually completed and stable reference for XHTML1.1 since
>significant bits of the world happen to use that. They might want the editor's
>draft - which is relatively prone to including unstable ideas that Ian picked, such
>as removing <time>, because it also contains the latest fixes to various problems
>that are unresolved, or they might want a "published snapshot" like the heartbeat
>drafts, so they can spend a few weeks learning what is in it and doing a thorough
>review, or they might want a document that has reached recommendation so
>they know what is covered by the W3C patent license, or ...
>
>>> but perhaps providing a URL to the XHTML namespace would suffice. The
>>> namespace points to the major specifications relevant to HTML
>>> including the HTML5 working draft, so a browser would be able to find
>>> the latest version of HTML from there.
>>
>> Given that namespaces are an xml feature, I don't think anyone should
>> be expected to look at a namespace url to find out anything about html
>> which is not, for the most part, an xml language.
>
>Agree.
>
>I think the "latest version" should point to a document which explains the family
>of HTML specifications W3C makes available, and points to the different ones
>with useful identifiers. And that the stable, historical, and for many purposes out-
>of-date versions should be republished with a clear pointer to such a page, which
>needs some maintenance from time to time...
>
>(BTW this also applies to things like CSS, and SVG, that have gone through
>multiple versions and have parts in active development along with parts that are
>generally believed to be completely stable...)
>
>cheers
>
>Chaals
>
>--
>Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
>     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
>http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com


Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 10:33:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:47 GMT