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

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

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:10:27 +0200
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uzixbpf764w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:02:08 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> ...
>> 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?
>> ...
>
> Please elaborate: which non-normative section?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2854 only has references to older HTML  
versions in the non-normative introductory section.

Is that sufficient to able to answer my questions?


>> 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?
>
> It isn't. It was Ian's choice to do it this way. My proposal is and was  
> to leave the registration in a separate document, which can continue to  
> also reference previous specs.

That is not an answer to my question. But since you put it this way, why  
would the media type registration document have to reference the previous  
specifications?


>> 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?
>
> A namespace-wellformed XML document is also a wellformed XML document.  
> So unless RFC 3023 needs to say something specific about XML namespaces,  
> it seems to be ok not to reference it.

Fair enough.


> I don't understand the other part. Could you elaborate?

There are multiple versions of XML 1.0, only a single one is referenced.  
What does that imply?


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 11:11:21 UTC

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