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 14:14:46 +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.uzi0awik64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:45:05 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> Can you answer my questions assuming the last sentence is dropped. That  
>> is, why is this a requirement for media type registrations and where is  
>> that documented?
>
> I don't know whether it's documented (and where), but I think it's  
> obvious as the media type is supposed to describe existing content as  
> well.

For HTML content my experience is that HTML5 does a much better job at  
that than HTML1-4. Consider for instance that 95% or so documents have a  
syntax error. That is kind of the point of HTML5, to describe existing  
content better than HTML1-4.


On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:49:58 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:
> 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.

I'll leave this to the parallel thread.


>> 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.

I don't see how you figure out which HTML version the document is in.

I also wonder if you think it is more sensible for UAs to process  
non-HTML5 documents using SGML as HTML2-4 arguably prescribe.


>>>> 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".

Mkay.


> (*) I do realize that there is disagreement about whether that's true  
> for the 5th edition, but that's an orthogonal problem.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 12:15:38 UTC

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