- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:51:06 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, 'Adam Barth' <w3c@adambarth.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
On Feb 28, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 28.02.2010 18:55, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> ... >> 1) It seems to me that documents with an HTML4 doctype can already be >> distinguished from ones with an HTML5 doctype. In fact, conformance >> checkers are explicitly allowed to defer to an HTML4 validator if >> they >> see an HTML4 doctype. So examples of requiring HTML4 constructs >> that are >> invalid HTML5 would not be helped in any way by adding an explicit >> version indicator to HTML5. Now, there may be other problems with >> this, >> such as not allowing HTML4 to be sent as text/html (depending on what >> ultimately happens with our IANA registration). But that problem is >> not >> resolved by changing the set of allowed DOCTYPE strings to include >> ones >> with an explicit HTML5 version indicator. >> ... > > That assumes that we actually resolve the media type registration so > that the HTML4 vocabulary stays valid. I don't know what will happen with that. But it seems like a separate question to whether HTML5 itself has an explicit version indicator. In particular, adding a version indicator to HTML5 will not by itself have any effect on whether it is conforming to server HTML4 as text/ html. Regards, Maciej
Received on Sunday, 28 February 2010 18:51:41 UTC