- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:26:36 +0300
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Aug 10, 2009, at 13:34, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Henri Sivonen wrote: >> Having an in-band version indicator for conformance checking makes >> the >> following unwritten assumptions: >> >> * It's appropriate for a person opting to target an older "version" >> not to see more up-to-date advice. (Surely newer advice should be >> assumed to be better informed and, thus, better advice.) >> >> * If the person running a conformance checker and the person >> producing the markup are different people (or the same person at >> different times), the markup producer should choose the checker >> target >> "version"--not the person invoking the checker. > > Your assumptions are based on the assumption that conformance to some > version is somehow different to conformance to a different version > from > the perspective of a conformance checker. Otherwise there could not be > good advice and bad advice, only correct and incorrect "advice", and > there would be no "target version" to consider. I would regard this as > incorrect, and hence your assumptions as not implied by inline labels. I'm assuming that if language level n+1 makes something non-conforming that was conforming in language level n, the newer spec does so for a good reason. If people have language level n version identifiers in their documents, they miss out on this important advice. Basically if current wisdom is that <font> is evil, <font> doesn't become less evil if you add an HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 14:27:14 UTC