W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

RE: ISSUE-53: mediatypereg - suggest closing on 2009-09-03

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:10:18 -0700
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8B62A039C620904E92F1233570534C9B0118DB8F1C10@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>
> > 1) Should HTML5's update to the text/html and application/xhtml+xml MIME
> > types be:
> >     A) Inline in the HTML5 spec, as is the custom for other recent W3C
> > specifications?
> >         OR
> >     B) Posted as an separate IETF RFC, updating the previous RFC for this
> > purpose?

I suggest at least considering:

     C) Left alone: do nothing

The purpose of RFC 2854 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2854
was to provide a registration of "text/html" which would 
not need updating as HTML evolved.

Yes it says

Published specification:
      The text/html media type is now defined by W3C Recommendations;
      the latest published version is [HTML401].  In addition, [XHTML1]
      defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML
      4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html.

but the intent at least was to allow the MIME registration to
stand even as the language evolved.

but if HTML5 is an evolution of HTML401, then no new
registration is needed to update the reference.

Is there anything in RFC 2854 that actually needs updating?
Why should text/html registration need updating at all?

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Sunday, 23 August 2009 23:11:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:51 UTC