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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:51:06 -0800
Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, 'Adam Barth' <w3c@adambarth.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <9C2AE97C-2A12-4C0F-8814-BD4BD306B9F8@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

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/ 

Received on Sunday, 28 February 2010 18:51:41 UTC

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