- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:50:00 +0200
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:38:29 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: >> ... >> It is pointless to provide semantics of elements (or other features) >> that are obsolete other than the semantics that form the element's (or >> the feature's) normative user-agent conformance criteria, since the >> only effect of such semantics is in deciding whether the element (or >> feature) is being used correctly, and obsolete elements (and features) >> can never be used correctly, since they are obsolete and must never be >> used at all. >> ... > > That's fine with me. But in that case, the spec doesn't describe > previous versions sufficiently, and the media type registration should > continue to also reference previous specifications. I continue to wonder what I'm missing here. Is this a requirement of media type registrations? If so, do you have a pointer? Furthermore, if this is a requirement, why are references from a non-normative section sufficient? Apart from this whether this is or is not a requirement, what is useful about this being defined in HTML5 if it has absolutely no effect on anyone whatsoever? How does this work for other media type registrations? E.g. RFC 3023 only references the Second Edition of XML 1.0. Does that mean it cannot be used when namespaces are used in XML? Can it not be used for the Fifth Edition? The First? How does this work? -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 10:50:49 UTC