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 18:26:11 -0700
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8B62A039C620904E92F1233570534C9B0118DB8F1C14@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>
I'm suggesting you can close the issue merely by removing
unnecessary text, and that any updates to the MIME
registry can be handled elsewhere when and if they are
necessary. How is resolving this necessary for "last call"
on this document?

re: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2854

> 1) It says HTML401 is the "latest published version", which will be  
> false when HTML5 goes REC. It doesn't even say "at time of writing",  
> just that it's the latest version.

 (1) I know of no other way of reading "latest published version" in
     a dated document other than "at time of writing". What else
     could "latest published version" mean? "The latest published
     version  of X is Y, at least at the time of writing." would
     be awkward.
 (2) it also says (please read the whole RFC):
    Author/Change controller:
      The HTML specification is a work product of the World Wide Web
      Consortium's HTML Working Group.  The W3C has change control over
      the HTML specification.
 (3) Something that should happen "when HTML5 goes REC" doesn't seem like
    fit should be an issue that needs to be resolved before working
    group Last Call.


> 2) There's no explicit "or any later version" clause, so it's not  
> obvious that future versions of HTML are allowed. Future versions of  
> XHTML, for example, aren't; how is one to tell from this RFC which  
> future specs are included? Nothing in the RFC would let you tell that  
> HTML5 is allowed, but XHTML 1.1  not.

I don't understand your "nothing"

      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.

XHTML 1.1 doesn't define a profile of use of XHTML which is
compatible with HTML 4.01, so the reference to XHTML 1.0
doesn't apply to XHTML 1.1.

> I think at the very least, some kind of update is needed to clarify  
> these issues.

Before last call?

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 01:26:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:44 GMT