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: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:56:42 +0100
Message-ID: <4B69809A.3000107@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:26:34 +0100, Julian Reschke 
> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:58:03 +0100, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>> That's the choice, I think.  I prefer #1.
>>>  The reason I prefer #2 is that we have had reason to obsolete 
>>> features over time. Given that it makes sense that conformance also 
>>> evolves over time as we learn more about the medium.
>>
>> But we're not obsoleting, we're removing.
> 
> Removing is what I understand obsoleting to be. (Though I believe all 
> old features are still mentioned.)
> 
> 
>> If HTML5 only removed things that were already deprecated in HTML4 
>> we'd probably have a different discussion.
> 
> If we developed HTML5 at the pace of HTML32, HTML4, etc. that might be 
> reasonable, but I don't think that is necessary now.

The current way the spec and the registration is written will cause huge 
amounts of previously valid text/html content to become invalid. That 
can be fixed by obsoleting less stuff in HTML5 or by continuing to allow 
HTML 4 to be used for text/html. Or we can continue to ignore the issue 
until we try to update the mime type registration, and then the issue 
will come up again.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2010 13:57:21 GMT

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