W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2012

RE: Precision and error handling (was URL work in HTML 5)

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 02:56:21 -0700
To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
CC: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E367FB4FB@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
The previous HTML registration http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2854   also specified likely error behavior. Media Type registrations were intended to register the language-as-used.

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah Mendelsohn [mailto:nrm@arcanedomain.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2012 11:11 PM
> To: Michael[tm] Smith
> Cc: Eric J. Bowman; "Martin J. Dürst"; Robin Berjon; Larry Masinter; W3C TAG
> Subject: Re: Precision and error handling (was URL work in HTML 5)
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/6/2012 9:40 PM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
> > I don't think that's true. I think the correct architectural choice is to
> > tie the media type to the spec that attempts to be the most comprehensive
> > specification for the language. That's no different from the case of the
> > HTML4 spec. There was not a separate author spec for HTML4 -- there was
> > just one spec.
> 
> Yes, but... the HTML5 specification also, for good reason,  goes to great
> lengths to document interoperable client behavior for non-conforming
> content. I'm not particularly happy having that bit as part of the
> registration. The registration should describe conforming content only, I
> think.
> 
> Noah
Received on Sunday, 7 October 2012 09:57:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 7 October 2012 09:57:01 GMT