- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:08:05 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
The Web Architecture document says: "A data format specification SHOULD provide for version information." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#pr-version-info I think there's not really a strong consensus around that good practice note. In a Jun 2006 meeting in Amherst, MA, I led a discussion around: CSS3 documents must/should/should not/must not bear distinct version info at 'the top' from css2 documents. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/06/12-tagmem-minutes.html#item05 The minutes aren't great, and unfortunately the follow-up action has fallen into the someday pile. This week in the HTML WG, we have: > Conformance checkers should say (like the W3C one does) what version > they are checking against. They should also offer different versions or > profiles to check against (e.g. "the subset supported by IE", "HTML5", > "HTML6"). But the version you check against is independent of the version > the document was authored for, and neither version belongs in the > document, IMHO. -- Ian Hickson 24 March http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.62.0703242238510.14425@dhalsim.dreamhost.com Lachlan Hunt's follow-up gives supporting arguments. http://www.w3.org/mid/4605D078.6030403@lachy.id.au I don't see arguments in webarch to refute him. In fact, I'm sympathetic to the argument. At the risk of asking others to do my homework for me, is #pr-version-info supported by current drafts on the XMLVersioning-41? Does anyone have arguments one way or the other to add? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 30 March 2007 19:08:07 UTC