- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 18:05:16 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > > > > I think Web Forms 2 should refer to a dated version of HTML 4.01 (for > > > example section 2.13), not to the latest version since there is a very > > > small chance that the definition might change eventually. > > > > Why wouldn't we want WF2 to track changes in HTML4? > > Because the draft someone implements might not be stable in such cases. The link points to the stable URI, so it would only be the stable version, not work in progress drafts, that was referenced. > Once HTML4 updates, WF2 could get an update of its own and match the > changes in other drafts. Unfortunately as the CSS working group is discovering with CSS 2.1, the theory of "we'll update the spec when our dependencies change" does not really work. (Many specs reference CSS2, and few have been updated to point to CSS2.1.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 10:05:16 UTC