W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2007

should CSS, HTML, etc. documents bear version information? (XMLVersioning-41?)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:08:05 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1175281685.4850.110.camel@dirk>

The Web Architecture document says:

  "A data format specification SHOULD provide for version information."
  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#pr-version-info

I think there's not really a strong consensus around that
good practice note.

In a Jun 2006 meeting in Amherst, MA, I led a discussion around:

  CSS3 documents must/should/should not/must not bear distinct
    version info at 'the top' from css2 documents.
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/06/12-tagmem-minutes.html#item05

The minutes aren't great, and unfortunately the follow-up
action has fallen into the someday pile.

This week in the HTML WG, we have:

> Conformance checkers should say (like the W3C one does) what version 
> they are checking against. They should also offer different versions or 
> profiles to check against (e.g. "the subset supported by IE", "HTML5", 
> "HTML6"). But the version you check against is independent of the version 
> the document was authored for, and neither version belongs in the 
> document, IMHO.
 -- Ian Hickson 24 March
http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.62.0703242238510.14425@dhalsim.dreamhost.com

Lachlan Hunt's follow-up gives supporting arguments.
  http://www.w3.org/mid/4605D078.6030403@lachy.id.au

I don't see arguments in webarch to refute him. In fact,
I'm sympathetic to the argument.

At the risk of asking others to do my homework for me,
is #pr-version-info supported by current drafts on the XMLVersioning-41?

Does anyone have arguments one way or the other to add?


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 30 March 2007 19:08:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:45 GMT