W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Version indicators (was Re: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (7))

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:19:23 +0100
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org TAG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <28122F36-D0A0-4857-A0A4-9B0547E21A1E@berjon.com>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
On Dec 30, 2009, at 17:54 , Karl Dubost wrote:
>> - this document is feasibly valid for specification versions 1 through 8 through the application of the ignore-unknown rule to features (and be able to list which features would which version);
>> - this document is strictly valid from version 9 on.
> 
> What would it solve for the person writing a document?
> 
> There are two main usages for validators:
> 	1. Checking if you author correctly.
> 	2. Checking if the document respect an intended semantics.

It would tell you what version you're authoring against. That really shouldn't be something that authors should have to care about  if anything it's too complex. There are very few people out there who could look at an HTML document and tell you correctly whether it's 5, 4, 3.2, etc.

>> I think that this is probably best addressed through a must-understand flag. Sometimes I may use a new element and if you ignore it I don't care.
> 
> Sometimes spec writers change the semantics of an element, which makes it harder to create a stable environment.

Well, spec writers may indeed do many silly things. That's one reason why we talk about writing up architectural advice :)

> Versioning has two very different consequences if we are talking about authoring or consuming.

Certainly, but I fail to see how version indicators help with any of the authoring-related issues: there are too many cases in which authors will get version indicators wrong for it to be a useful tool.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 16:19:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:32 UTC