W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2004

[whatwg] Re: Doctype FPI

From: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-what@farside.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:15:17 +0100
Message-ID: <courier.40F3E065.00001743@mail.farside.org.uk>
Ian Hickson writes:
>> The problem with any FPI that we come up with is that vendors may
>> not implement all specifications [...]
> What _vendors_ implement is irrelevant here. (e.g. nobody has fully
> implemented HTML4, but that doesn't stop us using that FPI.)


However, I thought that the intention here was that Web Forms 2, Web 
Applications 1, and Web Controls 1 would be developed separately, precisely 
because a) they're orthogonal to some extent (more so between WC1 and the 
rest), and b) because smaller, more focussed, specifications are more likely 
to be implemented completely and correctly than a single monolithic 
specification (*cough* SVG *cough*). 

Given that the specifications *are* being developed (and ratified?) 
independantly, it's reasonable that we'd see documents developed using only 
one of the WHATWG specifications, so I don't see that a single FPI would 
work here.  Indeed, you've already pointed out the possibility of having 
identifiably-separate versioned FPIs. 

I don't think it's unreasonable that WA1 might require WF2, and that WC1 
might require WA1, and so I don't think that we'd need all combinations. 
However, if we're going to submit these as individual extensions to HTML, 
with some time occurring between each one, rather than produce a single 
monolithic HTML5 spec and DTD, I think we need to allow people to specify 
which 'version' of HTML they're using. 

Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 06:15:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:35 UTC