- From: Matthew Ratzloff <matt@builtfromsource.com>
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
On Sun, March 11, 2007 3:20 pm, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > There needs to be versioning? The web has done great so far without it... > I'm not sure I really see the need. The Web has done great so far without it? When "strict" mode was introduced, all existing websites didn't suddenly start rendering under it. It was opt-in. Versioning is just a formalized way of opting into a certain rendering method. It would be great if rendering always stayed the same, browser makers always got it right the first time, and things were only added to the specification. But as I mentioned previously, without versioning of some sort, rendering either becomes a moving target or browser makers become slaves to backwards compatibility. Or, more likely, some combination of both. By introducing a version attribute, browser makers can have a rendering engine for HTML 4.01, one for HTML 5, one for HTML 6, and so on (or really, one rendering engine with differences extended off of it). This way, users are required to transition to newer forms of HTML if they want access to new tags, which also means no longer using deprecated tags (with something like a one-version transitional period). If you want access to <superdupertag>, you have to give up <blink> at some point. And no one is ever required to update their old sites to get them to render correctly. This seems especially important with deprecation or with tags that change usage between versions. Of course, this requires lots of communication between browser makers and standards bodies. -Matt
Received on Sunday, 11 March 2007 17:01:38 UTC