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

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

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:02:16 +0000
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: 'Maciej Stachowiak' <mjs@apple.com>, 'Adam Barth' <w3c@adambarth.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1267405337.15017.30.camel@ophelia2.g5n.co.uk>
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 11:38 -0800, Larry Masinter wrote:
> If someone wants to write a different change proposal which
> introduces a HTML version parameter somewhere else, I would
> likely be willing to support that as well. 

For what it's worth, the following HTML and XHTML Recs/RFCs all include
an attribute called 'version' on the root element which may be used to
indicate HTML version:

	HTML 2.0
	HTML 3.2
	HTML 4.01 (Transitional DTD **)
	XHTML 1.1
	XHTML+RDFa 1.0

** = yes, HTML 4.01 deprecates it, so you might think it's justifiable
for HTML5 to remove it altogether, but you've got to look at the reason
that HTML 4.01 deprecates it: "it is redundant with version information
provided by the document type declaration". If version information is no
longer provided by the DTD in HTML5, then it is no longer redundant.

Similar facilities are available in some/all(?) versions of SVG, in RSS
2, in XSLT, in OPML and probably other common XML formats that I'm
forgetting.

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 01:03:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC