- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:40:15 +0900
- To: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
On 01/04/07, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote: > 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. Any discussions on versioning is difficult to move forward without taking into account all classes of products in the context of a technology. * authoring tools * renderers * libraries * semantics (aka meaning) extractors * validators, checkers, helping tools * converters * etc. have all different constraints when dealing with documents. Analyzing the pros and cons of a version number has to be done in relation with each class of product. # short digression: Any *alive* language has a version scheme. The easiest example is human language. A word change drastically its meaning through time and doesn't lead to the same understanding or implementations. It is common to read about debates around interpretation of old scriptures. Words are used in a cultural and historical context. The version is the time when the word is used. So the first thing to do when we analyze a text is to know the date (year version) to be able to understand it. Example: The [word "screen"][1] went from a medium to block to a medium to communicate. Complete change of semantics. # back to markup language A language has always a version. Sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit. The versioning question arises always as if should be part of the document or not. There is an [active discussion][2] about this on the HTML WG mailing- list. I think the discussion on versioning would be easier if the conformance requirements were clearer. For example, it might be mandatory for an authoring tool to specify the version of the language in the document, but for a renderer to be able to ignore it. The requirements on the renderers, the documents, and the authoring tools are not necessary the same but still be compatible. # side note for HTML The same way there is the possibility to do <meta name="generator" content="[authoring tool X]" /> we can imagine that some people might need to do <meta name="version" content="html4.01" /> [1]: http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/screen.htm [2]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/ thread#msg151 -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/ *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2007 02:41:33 UTC