W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Re-registration of text/html

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 03:31:24 -0800
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <F5D2E112-7FF3-4FB8-821F-5F927319987C@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Feb 20, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 20.02.2010 09:25, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Julian Reschke, Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:50:45 +0100:
>>
>>> ISSUE-82 in turn is related to ISSUE-53. If the re-registration of
>>> text/html excludes HTML4 validity, then yes, HTML5 will not only  
>>> need
>>> to make @profile conforming but also define it.
>>
>> Could someone shed some light on exactly what is meant here? What  
>> kind
>> of reregistration of text/html? What kind of consequences? How/In  
>> what
>> sense does reregistration exclude HTML4 validity? Is there other  
>> kinds
>> of validity, like XHTML served as text/html that is excluded too? How
>> will I get to feel that it is "excluded"?
>
> HTML5 contains IANA instructions to change the specification for  
> text/html from RFC 2854 to HTML5 (<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#text-html 
> >)
>
> Thus, if HTML5 forbids something (such as @profile), you can't serve  
> it as text/html anymore, even though you might be using an HTML 4.01  
> doctype. (Well, you *can* serve it as text/html, it "just" wouldn't  
> be correct anymore).

It seems to be it should be confirming to serve content that uses one  
or more "other applicable specifications" extensions. Is that  
consistent with what the MIME registration says? If not, we'd better  
fix it, or not only @profile but also RDFa and Microdata will be  
nonconforming to send in text/html. I assume this is not what we want.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Sunday, 21 February 2010 11:32:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:14 UTC