- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:06:05 -0500
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Henry S. Thompson wrote: > Net-net -- languages should provide a means for specifying version > information, but conformant processors should be able to override such > specifications if requested/directed by consumers. > I am normally only a lurker on this list, but I want to express my strong agreement with this. One of the things we struggle with in the (X)HTML Working Group is how to ensure that a document author (producer) can express clearly which XHTML Family markup language they used when they created their content. 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). Does it always matter from a validation perspective what the producer intended? No. Not *always*. But it might matter. Because it *might* matter, we must allow producers the opportunity to guide agents. If an agent or an agent's user (consumer) chooses to ignore this advice... well, that's on them I guess. -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2007 14:06:37 UTC