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

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

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:47:29 -0800
To: "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "'Adam Barth'" <w3c@adambarth.com>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000c01cab8e9$898fe4c0$9cafae40$@org>
In any case, I think we're past the stage of debating
the proposals themselves. There are two change proposals,
one which reinstates DOCTYPE based versioning, and one
that doesn't. 

I'll stop posting email which isn't supplying new information;
I thought the accessibility regulation case was new, but
the XML editor case wasn't.

If you have some friendly amendment to my change proposal
you'd like to suggest, that could be a topic for discussion,
but let's not rehash all the old arguments?



-----Original Message-----
From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 6:33 PM
To: Sam Ruby
Cc: Larry Masinter; 'Adam Barth'; 'HTML WG'
Subject: Re: ISSUE-4 (html-versioning) (vs. ISSUE-30 longdesc)

On Feb 28, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > - As far as I can tell, Atom has no in-band format version  
> indicator.
>> There is a namespace URI but no indication of intent to change it  
>> for future Atom versions.
> Atom has no in-band format version indicator.  There is a namespace

> URI, but the explicit intent was NOT to change it for potential  
> future Atom versions.  See:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#section-6.2

Sam, I'm curious. Why did the ATOMPUB WG choose not to have a version

identifier? Was there any archived discussion of this which you could

point us to?

Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 02:48:06 UTC

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