- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:33:33 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote: > > Even more, if the version of the language is indicated within the > document, it is defined by the author, which version of the language is > relevant and the others are irrelevant. If not and there is no other > information available, it is undefined. It can be a good first approach > to try the newest language for a guess. Analysis of the content can lead > to an even better/different guess. An even better solution is to extend the language in a way that doesn't harm pre-existing documents, such that no version numbering is necessary. This is what HTML5 does. > You claimed, that the new version defines the meaning of old versions > too. This can only be true, if there are no inconsistencies and the new > version is a real superset of the old. No. I claim that the new version defines the processing of all versions to the extent necessary to handle existing documents in a manner that is acceptable to users. I believe we have succeeded with this; if there are cases where we have failed, please demonstrate these cases, by showing actual non-demonstration documents on the Web with actual non-demonstration software being processed in a way that conflicts what HTML5 says. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 09:31:03 UTC