- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:20:47 -0600
- To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Cc: Philip TAYLOR <chaa006@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 21:36 +0000, 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'm not sure I agree; I think the issues are separable. But regardless, if you want to discuss them together, don't just ignore all the discussion of doctypes and versioning that went before; as I said: > Your proposal is more relevant to > > ISSUE-4 (html-versioning): HTML Versioning and DOCTYPEs > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/4 Your proposal is quite similar to ones that have been made before; e.g. Hyatt 24 Apr 2007 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1408.html But note arguments against, e.g. by David Baron http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0279.html Your proposal prompted discussion of alternatives... On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 16:06 +0100, Jirka Kosek wrote: > If version should be carried, then it should look like > > for HTML serialization: > <!DOCTYPE html> > <html version="5.0"> > ... > </html> ... but we've been here before: Maciej Stachowiak "If we have versioning, it should be in an attribute, not the doctype" - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1053.html If you have new information on the issue of doctypes and versioning, very well. But I don't see any so far. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 22:22:00 UTC