- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 08:55:23 +0100
- To: www-tag@w3.org
On 01/04/07, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote: > > This has "classification" ramifications (this is XHTML Basic, this is > > XHTML + MathML) and "versioning" ramifications (this is XHTML Basic > > 1.0, while *this* used XHTML Basic 1.1). > > Such classification and versioning has yet to prove useful in any way > whatsoever. They have in fact proven to be actively harmful to the web > by creating "walled gardens", particularly in the mobile market. > > > Does it always matter from a validation perspective what the producer > > intended? No. Not *always*. > > Validation seems to be the only remotely valid argument put forth in > favour of versioning, Downstream processing of xml content requires validation and hence versioning to assure the processor that the content being worked is as expected. Data without use seems of little value. When archived XML is pulled from storage, how will it be processed without guesswork if it's lineage is unknown? By guessing from the root element? -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Sunday, 1 April 2007 07:55:26 UTC