- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:12:19 +0100
Ian Hickson wrote: > 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. Sorry, I meant that some might implement a stable version of WF2 which gets updated indirect by a stable update of HTML4. >> 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.) There are both advantages and disadvantages in that I suppose. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 10:12:19 UTC