- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 23:15:14 -0400
- To: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
- Cc: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org, ayg@aryeh.name, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 09:21 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote: > What I have not seen on the discussion thread yet (and that I would like to see) is > What are the current *tools* requirements for processing/hosting a document on W3C space? > With these requirements, *we* (the community altogether) can decide what is usable or not. Seems to me a requirement should be that the format issuitable for archiving. This means that the document indicates to exactly which version of which specification(s) it conforms, and actually does conform. Without a formal public identifier in the doctype declaration, or a version attribute on the HTML element, I don't personally consider it acceptable to use HTML 5 in a situation in which long term archiving is expected. Even with such version indication, HTML 5 must obviously not be used in archived contexts until it is a stable specification - in W3C terms that means a Recommendation. Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 03:15:55 UTC