Re: Versioning and html[5]

Ben Ward wrote:
> I have a question for Chris Wilson and other versioning advocates at 
> this point:
> What if you're right? What if actually it is unsustainable to develop 
> HTML in an evolutionary manner beyond HTML5? Maybe Ian Hickson and the 
> WHATWG, bright as they are, have missed some critical facet that means 
> we do need a discrete switch between revisions after all?
> What if you're right? How does that block this group from _attempting_ 
> to build a better, evolutionary and backward compatible HTML? Why can 
> we not approach this first ‘new’ HTML with the complete and committed 
> intent that it be evolutionary over HTML4 and that HTML6 will be 
> evolutionary over HTML5? Why can't we try it this — better — way?
> You'll still get a new DOCTYPE — <!DOCTYPE html> — so IEs legacy 
> features can be switched one last time if you guys really need it. And 
> then, we try to make this work.

I think the problem versioning advocates have with this is that we will 
be spec'ing a moving target.  While it may be true now that <!DOCTYPE 
html> is a good way of opting in to HTML5, by the time HTML5 is 
finalised, it may not be true.  While I personally do not want to see 
versioning and agree with your sentiments, I can see why those that want 
versioning do not feel comfortable relying on this doctype switch.


Received on Saturday, 14 April 2007 11:51:44 UTC