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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:49:58 +0200
Message-ID: <4A9BB8E6.9010006@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
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>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> ...
> Is this documented somewhere?
> 
> And in what way is HTML5 not sufficient to understand older documents? 

For instance, it doesn't describe the *semantics* of head/@profile.

> Do you think it would be better if UAs used SGML parsers for non-HTML5 
> documents and leave it undefined as to when they should invoke them for 
> a text/html byte stream?

I don't understand that question.

>>> There are multiple versions of XML 1.0, only a single one is 
>>> referenced. What does that imply?
>>
>> It implies that when RFC 3023 gets revised, the reference will need to 
>> be updated. Note, btw, that it uses the un-dated URI as reference.
> 
> Should it only point to the latest version or all five?

Depends on what changes were made. The changes in XML 1.0 are *supposed* 
to be only errata being applied (*), so the answer here would be "just 
the latest".

BR, Julian

(*) I do realize that there is disagreement about whether that's true 
for the 5th edition, but that's an orthogonal problem.
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 11:50:41 UTC

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