W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: ISSUE-4 (html-versioning) (vs. ISSUE-30 longdesc)

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:58:12 -0800
Message-ID: <5c4444771002272258l1a9ffe54x6d9e372a501edfb6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
> Adam and Maciej:
> There's also Test 1.1_HTML_05 which tests explicitly for img@longdesc
> for images that "require a long description" although it does
> say "Fully automatable: no", it doesn't say "and any other method
> might also be used".
> But this is getting pretty far afield from the original subject,
> which was about versioning:
>  Are there any mandated or regulated tests for compliance with
>  laws, regulations or policies, where the test explicitly requires
>  something which is valid in HTML4, and isn't valid in HTML5,
>  or which might become invalid in the future?

It still seems like the issue with whether particular features are or
are not conforming in HTML5.  If there were such regulations, it seems
like there are several alternatives to having a version indicator:

1) Make those required features conforming in HTML5.
2) Author the document to conform with HTML4.
3) Author a non-conforming document.
4) Update the requirements to accept the improved accessibility
features of newer versions of HTML5.

What's the problem if a document conforms to multiple versions of HTML
(e.g., because those versions of HTML don't have a version indicator)?
 Can you give an example regulation where that would matter (either
from the real world, or, if you can't find one, invented for the
purpose of discussion)?

> If you say "no, there are no such tests" or "such tests
> are unimportant and we don't take them into account", then we
> can go hunting through test suites looking for some, or
> for some people who care about them.
> It seems like you're picking on the examples and giving
> reasons why you think they aren't really examples, but
> not really answering whether you think there are NO examples
> and never will be.

You selected the examples.  Would you prefer that we discussed
different examples?

> If, on the other hand, you agree that there are, or are likely
> to be, any examples of this, then we can talk about how
> the suggestion that the testing be "version specific" might
> work in the situation when there is no DOCTYPE to look at.

I don't really know whether there are, or are likely to be, any examples.

Presumably regulations are written so that someone could write a
document that follows the regulations at some point in time.  Suppose
we author document D that at time T1 that follows the regulations and
is conformant with HTML5 (sans version indicator).  Now, at time T2,
we publish HTML6 (sans version indicator) that lacks a feature
required by the regulation.  This is the situation you're worried
about right?  It seems like we can just as easily author document D at
time T2.  That document follows the regulation and conforms with HTML5
(which is essentially approach 2 above).  What bad thing happens?

Received on Sunday, 28 February 2010 06:59:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:58 UTC