- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:43:09 -0500
- To: "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>
- CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 3/7/2012 7:03 AM, Carr, Wayne wrote: > My original post was not issue 2 (what I was asking for was snipped out in what's below). HTML4 isn't a superseded REC because html5 isn't a REC. That was the point. But, HTML5 is defacto the new html spec and it will take a very long time to get to REC even though it is widely implemented. We should do something in the html4 REC to at least point to html5. > > The suggestion was to put a note in the HTML4 spec pointing to the latest html5 TR WD. (and keeping that up to date is a different issue - but it's better than not indicating anything in the old and out of date official REC). Having a hard time parsing issues and variations :( Do you think this was captured by anything written in Steve Zilles' memo? If not, would you like to recommend a general "issue" which can be worked by the AB? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:chaals@opera.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:05 AM >> To: Carr, Wayne; Marcos Caceres >> Cc: public-w3process@w3.org >> Subject: Re: html4 vs html5 and "superseded RECs" when there isn't a new REC >> >> Note - this is ISSUE-2 - if you add that string in mails about the topic they will be >> collected at >> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/2 >> >> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:48:35 +0100, Marcos Caceres<w3c@marcosc.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, 7 March 2012 at 10:35, Carr, Wayne wrote: >>>> With HTML4 we have the formal W3C Recommendation for HTML, but no one >>>> would want that as the basis for a UA. It has been superseded by HTML5. >>>> But, people still write that html4 is the html spec and html5 is in >>>> the future. Obviously, that doesn’t reflect the Web Browsers out >>>> there which have embraced html5. But html5 is still years away from >>>> going to REC. >>>> >>>> It seems in this (hopefully) unusual situation, >>> Just wondering, was it not the same case with CSS 2.1 (and now with >>> many modules of CSS3)? And with XHR 1 and XHR level 2 also (with >>> neither XHR version going to REC, while XHR 1 was abandoned in favour >>> of just "XHR"…) >> Yeah, I think the situation is actually quite common. >> >>> XHR level 2 was originally published under: >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest2/ >> ... >>> What would be nice would be if HTML5 would dethrone the obsolete XHTML >>> spec from the URI (and we dropped the "5" from the spec, as the WHATWG >>> has done): >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html/ >> Actually, I think that is a far too simplistic approach to be useful, except to a small >> handful of the stakeholders. And I think removing the version token from the spec >> is not a helpful solution, as nice as it might feel. >> >> Having a pointer that describes the status of HTML at >> http://www.w3.org/TR/html/ might be useful - and it might need to be more >> complex than "latest draft, last 'heartbeat' publication, last Recommendation". >> There are plenty of people who use XHTML. There are people who use HTML 4. >> There are people who use HTML5. And there are people who use HTML and don't >> actually know what they are using. If they want to look up "What is HTML" and >> they expect W3C (instead of Wikipedia, about.com, or their local library's CD- >> ROM encyclopedia of the Web) to explain it, we should think about how to >> provide different bookmarkable references for the different needs. >> >> (Which also feeds into the bibliographic references discussion Marcos kicked off a >> while ago. Did that result in any issues, actions, or >> conclusions?) >> >> 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
Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 00:43:12 UTC