Re: ISSUE-54: doctype-legacy-compat (leaking into ISSUE-4 (html-versioning))

On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 11:35 +0000, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
> [...]I therefore propose that the HTML 5 DOCTYPE should include,
> /at the very least/ the major (5) and minor (initially 0)
> elements of its version number.

We were having a nice discussion about issue-54;
as far as I could tell, we had consensus
on about:sgml-compat. 

Your proposal is more relevant to
  ISSUE-4 (html-versioning): HTML Versioning and DOCTYPEs

Please, don't cross the streams! If you're changing issues,
change the subject header... and consider a new thread

Dr. Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell
Dr. Peter Venkman: What? 
Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams. 
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why? 
Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad. 
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you
mean, "bad"? 
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping
instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed
of light. 
Dr Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal. 
Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety
tip. Thanks, Egon. 


>   I do not know which keywords
> could legitimately replace "about" in the last example above,
> but a DOCTYPE along the lines of :
> 	<!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "V:5.0">
> 		or
> 	<!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "version:5.0">
> would address all of my concerns on this issue.
> By so doing, this would ensure that when the specification
> is revised following its formal publication (as it surely
> will be), documents authored against the revised specification
> will be able to indicate this through their DOCTYPE, thereby
> ensuring that a validator is able to identify the correct version
> of the specification against which to check conformity.
> Philip TAYLOR
Dan Connolly, W3C
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 20:50:26 UTC