- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 14:49:35 -0500
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 02/06/2011 01:55 PM, 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. I encourage people to read the decision: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Dec/0135.html The intention was to narrowly scope the decision. Not only did we not intend to decide whether or not "HTML is a language without versions", we made no decision as to what "HTML6" (if such is ever created) may or may not include. - Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 6 February 2011 19:50:10 UTC