W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2011

Re: ISSUE-140 CPP — no conformance versions

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 14:32:46 +0100
Message-ID: <4D4EA2FE.8040001@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 06.02.2011 14:19, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Summary: Conformance to HTML should not have versions.
> Rationale: As previously resolved HTML is a language without versions.

Pointer? (I'm aware of discussions about the version being signaled in 
the document (like DOCTYPE), but that's not exactly the same thing).

> Introducing versions for conformance goes against this idea and will
> give the impression there is a difference between an "HTML5 conforming
> document" and an "HTML6 conforming document". The suggestion in the

There isn't?

> Change Proposal that applicable specifications could define their own
> terms will lead to a myriad of definitions related to HTML conformance
> and will not make the situation any clearer than simply using what is
> there today.

It's essential, when in the real world you need to communicate with 
another party about that kind of HTML you're using. For instance, try to 
write a SoW for a project and say "whatever works in the latest version 
of browsers".

> Details: No change.
> Impact: By not introducing versions in HTML conformance we keep it clear
> HTML does not use versions and we prevent the need to introduce lots of
> definitions around HTML conformance.

Side note: my understanding is that the relevant proposal isn't the 
version number, but to have a reliable label for the class of valid 
documents according to the spec we're working on, which is HTML5.

Do you say we don't need a label for that?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 6 February 2011 13:33:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:09 UTC