Re: Versioning and html[5]

Laurens Holst wrote:
> Instead of having 5.0, having a date like version="20070512" or just 
> "200705" seems like an even better idea, too, since we don’t want to 
> couple the version number to the specification version. Or maybe 
> version="5.0.200705".

Right, because authors will be able to remember and type that number so 
easily!

Seriously, I think that's a foolish idea.  As far as I'm concerned, 
there must be no versioning introduced into HTML.

> Now another question: is using HTML version numbers for fixing CSS 
> issues the correct thing to do?

No, not beyond the existing quirks/standards modes!

> From what I read (and from what IE6 and 
> IE7 fixed), *that* is what it is mostly used for. What happens to XML 
> pages that are styled with CSS? They don’t have any kind of version 
> information like this.

XML pages don't have the backwards compatibility issues that HTML pages 
do.  But HTML5 and XHTML5 pages should be rendered identically. (AIUI, 
the CSS WG intends to remove the few differences from the CSS spec).

> Then again, I would love if Microsoft could change the default type for 
> a <button> to submit instead of button.

They can!  That's not likely to significantly break the web, it's likely 
to fix a few pages.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

Received on Friday, 13 April 2007 08:24:01 UTC