- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:33:43 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6684 --- Comment #15 from Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmx.de> 2009-04-01 22:33:43 --- (In reply to comment #14) > > So why bother with (X)HTML 5 for all these people? ;-) > > Because HTML5 introduces all kinds of new features. What do the new JS MIME > types introduce? At least a new notation for Script-Mimetypes. Like the new (and not always easy to remember because of the plentitude of new elements) notation of some core elements of a (X)HTML 5 document. :-) > Why do we want these new MIME types to be more widely known and used? How does > the human race benefit from these MIME types? > > We only have finite resources. We should spend them on features that benefit > people. Some benefits must have been convincing enough for IETF and IANA to let pass RFC 4329 the long process of getting accepted by these formal institutions, Ian. Only because you personally don't see the reason, why that particular RFC might be useful and has passed that long (several years!) formal process (see for instance http://rfc-editor.org/pubprocess.html), in which more than one expert has reviewed and discussed the request, that does not mean, that this particular RFC is useless, pointless, invalid. Ian, the browser teams of Mozilla, KDE Konqueror, Safari and Opera and even at least the HTTP team of Apache.org did not have such problems like you in accepting and implementing these new Mimetypes of this particular RFC into their software. They simply did it. Whithout questioning the decision of IANA and IETF. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 22:33:54 UTC