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

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

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:29:59 +0100
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u7ian9ew64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:18:26 +0100, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>  
wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren writes:
>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:06:41 +0100, Henry S. Thompson
>> <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>> Sure, if the spec. is changed so that all past HTML docs conform to
>>> the it, but as I said, I don't think that's a reasonable requirement
>>> on this or any other spec.
>>>
>>> My understanding of the discontinuity wrt the text/html media type
>>> registration prose is this:
>>>
>>>  1) Previous media type registrations for text/html have explicitly
>>>     grandfathered in documents allowed by all earlier registrations of
>>>     text/html;
>>
>> That does not seem to be true.
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2854 obsoletes various text/html media
>> type  features of HTML2 (level parameter) and HTML32 (version
>> parameter)
>
> Those are parameters of the _media type_, not attributes or elements
> in the HTML2 or HTML32 languages.

So you are saying you can change the media type but not which languages  
are associated with it? That seems odd to say the least. In any case, as  
Julian pointed out, you can do it but IANA needs to agree.


>> and only references HTML4 and XHTML1 as published specifications
>> related to the media type.
>
> I see references to HTML20 and HTML30 and HTML32 as well.

But they are not included in the actual registration. They are only  
referenced as historical context. They are not mentioned in the fragment  
identifier section either and also not mentioned in the security  
consideration section.


>>>  2) IETF rules for media type re-registrations requires that sort of
>>>     grandfathering;
>>
>> It seems there is a precedent.
>
> Not for restricting the class of documents which can be served.

I disagree.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 15:30:42 GMT

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