Re: ISSUE-4: html-versioning / ISSUE-84: legacy-doctypes - Straw Poll for Objections

On Aug 12, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:

> On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:02 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> The poll is available here, and it will run through Friday, July 30th:
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issues-4-84-objection-poll/
>> 
>> Please read the introductory text before entering your response.
>> 
>> In particular, keep in mind that you don't *have* to reply. You only need to do so if you feel your objection to one of the options is truly strong, and has not been adequately addressed by a clearly marked objection contained within a Change Proposal or by someone else's objection. The Chairs will be looking at strength of objections, and will not be counting votes.
> 
> I was on vacation while this poll was open, but I wanted to register my strong objection to the addition of a versioning indicator of any kind. It is an approach that with respect I can only deem naïve and that adds complexity without addressing the issue of compatible behaviour across change.
> 
> I have covered the topic previously, going into some lengths to describe architectural issues with version indicators as part of a discussion with the TAG in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Dec/0116.html, as well as in a lighterweight description that ends with a decision tree about the cases in which you need a version indicator at http://berjon.com/blog/2009/12/xmlbp-naive-versioning.html.

I find it incredible that such a large group of people can manage
to make identical "strong objections" based on an argument that
only holds true if browsers are the only consumers of HTML.
For all other consumers and producers, every objection made in
that poll is demonstrably false.  The problem is that none of
the other implementors of HTML bother to participate here because
their requirements are routinely ignored.

....Roy

Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 17:42:12 UTC