RE: should CSS, HTML, etc. documents bear version information? (XMLVersioning-41?)

Which version of the root element, and what about all the embedded
versioned material?  Great question, and I support fully self-describing
XML documents.

Cheers,
Dave 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Dave Pawson
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 12:55 AM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: should CSS, HTML, etc. documents bear version 
> information? (XMLVersioning-41?)
> 
> 
> 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 Monday, 2 April 2007 04:03:34 UTC