- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:59:44 -0500
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Larry Masinter wrote: > In any case, the DOCTYPE versioning issue is still open. I am > sympathetic to the arguments that "DOCTYPE" isn't a particularly > effective solution to the versioning problem. > > I don't accept the "let's just hope XHTML2 goes away" as a reasonable > resolution of the versioning issue, because it doesn't account for > the ever so slight possibility that -- heaven forbid -- there might > be anything in (X)HTML5 that one might actually ever want to change? > So that deployed user agents might actually know when they are being > presented with incompatible content? Larry, unless I'm missing something the doctype issue won't help with the use case of compound documents (say HTML used in <svg:foreignObject> no matter what. You can't put a doctype inside <svg:foreignObject> because that wouldn't be well-formed XML. So, as you say, doctype is not an effective solution for the problem. As for XHTML5 and incompatible changes, those would in fact need to be avoided, as they have generally been for HTML, unless we have a per-element versioning scheme in place.... -Boris
Received on Monday, 16 February 2009 20:00:34 UTC