- From: Bruce Boughton <bruce@bruceboughton.me.uk>
- Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:50:48 +0100
- To: Ben Ward <ben@ben-ward.co.uk>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
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. Bruce
Received on Saturday, 14 April 2007 11:51:44 UTC