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 20:09:02 +0100
Message-ID: <4D4EF1CE.9010403@gmx.de>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 06.02.2011 19:55, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren<annevk@opera.com>  wrote:
>> Rationale: As previously resolved HTML is a language without versions.
>> 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".
> In the W3C, there is going to be a standard called "HTML5" and
> presumably some standard later on called "HTML6", so these will indeed
> be two distinct concepts.  The W3C Process forces us to have versions
> of the specs themselves, even though the WG decided that versions
> won't be reflected anywhere in the markup.  So we need some way to
> distinguish between conformance to the HTML5 specification, which will
> be frozen and obsolescent pretty soon, and conformance to the HTML6
> specification (or 5.1 or whatever we decide to call it), which will be
> the correct one to refer to once HTML5 is frozen.


True, but not sufficient. As far as I understand, this issue is about 
clarifying what "HTML5 conformant" means. How extensions are handled, 
and how you call a document that uses extensions ("HTML5+ping"?)

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 6 February 2011 19:09:39 UTC

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