W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Backward-compatibility of text/html media type (ACTION-334, ACTION-364)

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:13:07 -0500
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF475ED930.F5C4C7E5-ON852576BE.005DBC44-852576BE.005E4634@lotus.com>
Anne van Kesteren writes

> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:58:03 +0100, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > That's the choice, I think.  I prefer #1.
> 
> The reason I prefer #2 is that we have had reason to obsolete features 
> over time. Given that it makes sense that conformance also evolves over 
> time as we learn more about the medium.

OK, maybe fair enough in certain edge cases.  I think there are at least 
two questions on the table:

1.  Is there an intention to have at least the vast majority of the older 
content work and be considered conforming?
2.  If so, what is the appropriate editorial means to be used in the media 
type registration and associated specifications to document such 
conformance rules.  I.e. should the media type registration continue to 
refer explicitly to the specifications for the older forms or not.

If there is a conscious decision to obsolete particular features, then I 
think that can be handled in any case.  That is, the media type 
registration could do something like explicitly reference HTML 4, but 
indicate "however, features X, Y, Z have been made obsolete and are thus 
no longer conforming."

I'm not offering an opinion as to whether the set of features to be 
obsoleted should in fact be non-empty; I am saying that I think we should 
take what I described as option #1 as the baseline, and if necessary, 
document specific deviations explicitly.  IMO, option #2 comes too close 
to:  HTML 5 is the new standard;  it's an exercise for the reader to 
figure out how much old stuff is still supported compatibly.  I think 
users want some more explicit guarantee that, unless warned to the 
contrary on clearly identified specifics, backwards compatibility is 
maintained.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








"Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
02/02/2010 11:16 AM
 
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" 
<ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 
www-tag@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: Backward-compatibility of text/html media type 
(ACTION-334, ACTION-364)


On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:58:03 +0100, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> That's the choice, I think.  I prefer #1.

The reason I prefer #2 is that we have had reason to obsolete features 
over time. Given that it makes sense that conformance also evolves over 
time as we learn more about the medium.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 17:11:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:19 GMT