- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:07:11 -0500
- To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Philip TAYLOR <chaa006@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote: > > Dan, I appreciate your trying to keep threads > separate, but a discussion on DOCTYPEs that > ignores the issue of versioning is (IMHO) > simply too insular and too parochial. In > all versions of HTML to date, the two have > been inextricably interlinked. There cannot > be consensus on "about:sgml-compat" unless > there is already consensus on the need for > versioning. I agree with Dan. There is consensus that what is in the spec now is broken. And we are nearing consensus that about:sgml-compat addresses those broken parts. None of that precludes us from coming to consensus that even that is broken, and needs to be addressed yet again. Please feel free to carry on with this discussion, but for best results link it with ISSUE-4. > Philip TAYLOR - Sam Ruby > -------- > Dan Connolly wrote: > >> 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 >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/4 >> >> Please, don't cross the streams! If you're changing issues, >> change the subject header... and consider a new thread >> altogether. >
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 22:07:51 UTC