HTML version issue summary?

In his message of Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:10:47 -0700,
David Hyatt says he has very different views
from those of Ian Hickson on the topic of versioning.

This topic is large enough that I'm reluctant to
try to treat it as one issue (in
my issue list scratchpad
it sorta sits under "TAG liaison").
But perhaps it's worth a shot.

David, would you please offer a summary of the issue
as you see it so far? I suppose others are welcome
to offer summaries too, but I'm particularly
interested in David's take.

Ian's message of 18 Apr surveys a few points
in the design space that led up to the choice
of <!DOCTYPE html>. I recommend it to anyone
who hasn't managed to read it so far.

I think discussion of a version attribute is novel
with respect to the designs summarized there.

Syntax involving comments have also been
mentioned. (Yes, it's ugly, but it still merits

I particularly appreciate the sort of test-driven
approach to the thread in which that message appears...

A Concrete Example for the HTML Versioning Debate

By Jeff Schiller's own admission, the example there is contrived.
I'm very interested in examples that are not contrived; i.e
examples where both sides of the issue grant that it's an
interesting case to consider, though their opinions on how
the case should be treated may differ. My favorite form of
working group decision includes concrete test cases of this sort.

I think it's useful for a summary to include discussion
of design principles such as "Don't Break The Web" and
others in the Compatibility section of the wiki topic.

I'm also interested in any objective, testable requirements
available in this design space. I think
Chris Wilson's "Versioning and html[5]" essay includes
some requirements involving deployed content, but I haven't
been able to crystallize them in my mind.

Working in this sort of background justification would be very
valuable, but if it's too much trouble, then don't bother.

But please do tell us which designs you've considered and which
ones you think are good ways to proceed.

Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2007 22:47:27 UTC