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

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

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:35:08 -0400
Message-ID: <e9dffd640908310835v2815c1bcs9bfcb23adb84f89@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren<annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I agree that the HTML5 parser is a far more suitable
version-independent parsing reference than anything in 4.01 or
earlier.  And it was my hope that HTML 5 could be the sole referenced
HTML specification from the updated media type registration for this
reason.  Unfortunately, it's missing enough other things - as has been
discussed here - to make that goal problematic.

Mark.
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 15:35:48 UTC

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