- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:24:00 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > ... >> From time to time, I work for a number of government agencies that are >> mired in red tape. One of these pieces of red tape, a website deployment >> checklist, states that we must generate valid HTML documents from our >> back-end systems. We have a ton of HTML4 content that uses @rev and >> @profile (correctly). There is talk that some HTML5 features (such as >> <video>) should be used in the next revision of the system, so we are in >> a bit of a situation. We can't just change the headers of the HTML4 >> documents we generate (the content of the documents were hand authored >> over 10 years ago) because @rev is now non-conforming and we can't >> deliver a system that doesn't allow the person overseeing the contract >> to check the box labeled "Documents are valid HTML". >> >> That's an example of why one would need to migrate legacy HTML4 >> documents to HTML5... it's not a rendering issue, it's a validation >> issue. > > If you have red tape that ensures you use the latest best practices, then > yes, you'd have to remove rev="" and profile="" as well as change the > DOCTYPE. This affects a very small portion of the authoring population, > though; a small-enough portion that it's an acceptable cost. > ... Well, the latest best practice for HTML5 maybe not to use @profile, but the latest best practice for other specs, such as GRDDL or DC-HTML *is* to include it. > ... BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 07:24:39 UTC