W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > February 2010

Re: HTML 5 media type spec and HTML 2, 3.2, 4.x usage

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:24:29 -0600
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <1265066669.3812.189.camel@pav.lan>
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 22:40 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010, Dan Connolly wrote:
> >
> > Recent drafts say:
> > 
> > [[
> >     This document is the relevant specification. Labeling a resource
> >     with the text/html type asserts that the resource is an *HTML
> >     document* using *the HTML syntax*
> > ]]
> >  -- http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/iana.html#text-html
> > 
> > And *the HTML syntax* doesn't include doctypes that are widely used in
> > documents that conform to HTML 2, 3.2, and 4.x specs and XHTML 1.x specs.
> > 
> > I think it's reasonable for consumers to treat those documents the way
> > that the HTML 5 spec says treat them, but I don't think it's reasonable
> > to say that those documents aren't text/html any more; I don't even
> > think it's reasonable to insist that people stop producing HTML 4.x
> > documents. I doubt that's really what anybody meant, but it's what
> > the document says.
> 
> Is this a new problem with the text/html registration in HTML5, or is this 
> a long-standing problem?

It wasn't a problem at all before HTML 5, because each spec for
text/html pretty much said "all existing HTML standards are fine".

It might not be (much of) a problem in HTML 5 either; I'm not
sure that "*the HTML syntax* doesn't include doctypes that are widely
used in documents that conform to HTML 2, 3.2, and 4.x specs and XHTML
1.x specs" since Anne helped me find the "obsolete permitted
DOCTYPE" stuff.




-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 1 February 2010 23:24:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 June 2011 00:14:01 GMT