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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:05:30 +0100
Message-ID: <4B683F3A.9060002@gmx.de>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 12:32 +0000, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Three points:
>>
>>  1) As Julian says, DOCTYPE is not the only issue;
>>
>>  2) Ian Hickson's response appears to me to confuse two separate
>>     issues -- we're not contesting that the HTML 5 spec can define
>>     conformance as it currently does -- previous HTML specs have
>>     eliminated features and ruled old documents non-conforming to the
>>     new spec.  What's at issue is whether or not such documents can be
>>     labelled 'text/html'.  Equating the class of "can be served as
>>     text/html" with the class "conforms to this spec." is what we are
>>     objecting to
> 
> It is? I don't recall objecting to that.
> 
> Given a suitable definition of "conforms to this spec", I think I'm
> OK with equating it with "can be served as text/html".
> ...

So, just to be clear: once the text/html registration is changed to 
HTML5, I can't serve

   http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html

as text/html anymore, as the document does not conform to HTML5 (due to 
head/@profile). Unless, of course, the definition of conformance is 
changed back to allow it.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 15:06:07 GMT

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