W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2010

RE: Backward-compatibility of text/html media type (ACTION-334, ACTION-364)

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:07:14 -0800
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D736A75@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Note HTML issue 4 change proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0015.html


subsequent HTML working group comments on it

Note that I have a "change proposal" in HTML WG to restore DOCTYPE 
in the DOCTYPE section of the spec, not just in the "parsing" section
which is part of error recovery and not part of the 'language' 
definition.

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/172


also comments about previously conforming MIME types:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1389.html



Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net



-----Original Message-----
From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 12:46 PM
To: Henry S. Thompson
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: Backward-compatibility of text/html media type (ACTION-334, ACTION-364)

On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 15:23 +0000, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
[...]
> The relevant part of the HTML5 spec., that is, the proposed text/html
> media type registration [2], currently reads:
> 
>   Published specification:
>     This document is the relevant specification. Labeling a resource
>     with the text/html type asserts that the resource is an *HTML
>     document* using *the HTML syntax*
> 
> The terms "HTML document" and "the HTML syntax" are defined in such a
> way as to rule out the use of text/html for a wide range of documents
> currently served (legitimately) as such.
[...]
> So, two questions:
> 
>  1) Is my analysis of the facts correct?

I'm not so sure any more. I sent a comment along these lines
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2010Feb/0001.html


and Anne pointed out that the doctypes seem to be accounted for
in the HTML syntax now:

Editor's Draft 30 January 2010
7.2.5.4 The "initial" insertion mode

[[[
If one of the sets of conditions in the following list is matched, then
there is an obsolete permitted DOCTYPE.

      * The DOCTYPE token's name is a case-sensitive match for the
        string "html", the token's public identifier is
        the case-sensitivestring "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN", and the
        token's system identifier is either missing or
        the case-sensitive string
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd".
]]]
 --
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-initial-insertion-mode



It's a little tricky to figure out how long that text has been
there, i.e. whether it's been fixed since your (2 Dec) message
or whether it was just so hard to find that you missed it.


>  2) Is it necessary to press on this issue _now_, or can it wait until
>     after Last Call?
> 
> ht
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/334

> [2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/iana.html#text-html

>     (if this doesn't resolve, try
>      http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/iana.html#text/html)
> [3] http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.html

> [4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4288#page-18

> [5] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/53

> [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features

> [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/changes.html#h-A.3.1.3



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E


Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 00:07:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:19 GMT