- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 20:01:23 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > > > The html version string is allowed primarily because it may be useful > > for content management systems and other development workflows as a > > kind of metadata to indicate which specification was being consulted > > when the HTML content was being prepared. > > The DOCTYPE is not intended for general purpose metadata. Given that > you're talking about controlled environments, there's nothing stopping > such sytems utilising other mechanisms intended providing metadata, like > <meta> as was suggested earlier. In fact, in controlled environments, the simplest solution is to write an additional specification specifically for that environment that extends HTML5 to add whatever preferred versioning feature the authors of those documents desire. There's no need to changr HTML5 itself to add this to pages restricted to a controlled environment. This gives the additional benefit that if the pages ever escape that environment, the proprietary additions would be immediately flagged by validators. > Although, I've not seen any evidence that there are any such systems > that utilise versioning metadata like this. Are you aware of any real > world CMSs today that do anything particularly useful with the > versioning informaton, and if so, what, and why is it a good design > pattern that should be endorsed by the spec in any way? This is the kind of information that should be included in the Rationale section of the change proposal when it is updated per Maciej's comments. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 20:02:01 UTC