- From: Dannii <curiousdannii@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:48:09 +1000
- To: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <af3e73120706230148t21947fadwe42b3f811ee1eb29@mail.gmail.com>
This seems to be a good position to have. I'm not sure if there are any situations where versioning would be useful to me, but having the option to would be good. I have a problem with what some have suggested however, which is enforced versioning. If there is versioning, the question must be asked as to what to do with unversioned documents. I think Chris Wilson said that IE will forever treat unversioned documents as whatever IE8 supports, which will likely be an incomplete implementation of HTML5, even if IE9 or later supports the whole of HTML5 or 6 or 7 or whatever. I don't think this is acceptable, if a document is unversioned, it should be interpreted as the latest version of HTML an implementation supports. Btw, what happened to the bugmode idea? No one in favour of it anymore? On 6/23/07, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Although I intend to address some specific points in > a future message, I think it might help to summarise > my position in as few words as possible : > > "If we /provide/ version information, we allow > others to make use of it if they so choose. > > If we /omit/ version information, we prevent > others from making use of it." > > Philip Taylor >
Received on Saturday, 23 June 2007 08:48:11 UTC