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

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
> >

Your proposal is quite similar to ones that have
been made before; e.g. Hyatt 24 Apr 2007

But note arguments against, e.g. by David Baron

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" - 

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
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 22:22:00 UTC