W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Note in HTML4 spec about html5?

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:51:15 +0100
To: "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>, "Jirka Kosek" <jirka@kosek.cz>
Cc: "Jace Voracek" <jacevoracek@me.com>, "David Carlisle" <davidc@nag.co.uk>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.wa4j3p2lwxe0ny@widsith-3.local>
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:47:06 +0100, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote:

> On 13.3.2012 11:33, Carr, Wayne wrote:
>> Would the chairs ask the WG if there are any objections to that?
> I object to modifying HTML4 spec and including proposed notice.

I don't object yet because I haven't seen the text of any such proposal...

> If you don't need new HTML5 features, HTML4 is still very fine  
> specification
> from authoring point of view.

Sure (with some caveats)

> And it doesn't make sense to retrocatively
> update specifications.

It doesn't make sense to change them in any substantive way and pretend  
you didn't. I don't think that is what I suggested... although the details  
matter, of course.


> Of course it makes sense to update pages that are pointing to various
> versions of HTML and XHTML specs and put info about HTML5 there.
> 				Jirka
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:chaals@opera.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:03 AM
>>> To: Jace Voracek; David Carlisle
>>> Cc: public-html@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: Note in HTML4 spec about html5?
>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:06:51 +0100, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/2012 15:54, Jace Voracek wrote:
>>>>  > I understand, as you
>>>>> mentioned, how that can be confusing for one searching for the latest
>>>>> HTML recommendation. Forwarding http://www.w3.org/TR/html to
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5 would make the original XHTML 1.0
>>>>> specification unaccessible,
>>>> No it would still be available at the rather more natural
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
>>>> which is the one listed at in the front matter of the document.
>>> The question is a bit double-headed. On the one hand, what do I find  
>>> at the end
>>> of http://www.w3.org/TR/html or .../html5 or .../html4 or /xhtml ...?
>>> On the other hand, if I want to use HTML, how do I find out what  
>>> people are
>>> using today?
>>> Note that each draft of the specification has a specific ID like
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-HTML-401-19991224 (for editor's drafts cvs  
>>> the URL
>>> looks a lot messier, but it can still be used to point to a specific  
>>> stable reference).
>>> If people are looking for HTML, they might want to know that the world  
>>> really
>>> *uses* HTML5, by and large. While they might want to know that, they  
>>> might
>>> also want to find the actually completed and stable reference for  
>>> XHTML1.1 since
>>> significant bits of the world happen to use that. They might want the  
>>> editor's
>>> draft - which is relatively prone to including unstable ideas that Ian  
>>> picked, such
>>> as removing <time>, because it also contains the latest fixes to  
>>> various problems
>>> that are unresolved, or they might want a "published snapshot" like  
>>> the heartbeat
>>> drafts, so they can spend a few weeks learning what is in it and doing  
>>> a thorough
>>> review, or they might want a document that has reached recommendation  
>>> so
>>> they know what is covered by the W3C patent license, or ...
>>>>> but perhaps providing a URL to the XHTML namespace would suffice. The
>>>>> namespace points to the major specifications relevant to HTML
>>>>> including the HTML5 working draft, so a browser would be able to find
>>>>> the latest version of HTML from there.
>>>> Given that namespaces are an xml feature, I don't think anyone should
>>>> be expected to look at a namespace url to find out anything about html
>>>> which is not, for the most part, an xml language.
>>> Agree.
>>> I think the "latest version" should point to a document which explains  
>>> the family
>>> of HTML specifications W3C makes available, and points to the  
>>> different ones
>>> with useful identifiers. And that the stable, historical, and for many  
>>> purposes out-
>>> of-date versions should be republished with a clear pointer to such a  
>>> page, which
>>> needs some maintenance from time to time...
>>> (BTW this also applies to things like CSS, and SVG, that have gone  
>>> through
>>> multiple versions and have parts in active development along with  
>>> parts that are
>>> generally believed to be completely stable...)
>>> cheers
>>> Chaals
>>> --
>>> Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
>>>     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
>>> http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 19:51:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:50 UTC