- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 07:23:20 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12073 Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED CC| |xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-i | |ua.no Resolution|WONTFIX | --- Comment #2 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-02-15 07:23:20 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) Just to clarify: when I said that ]] HTML5 should permit the XML declaration as conforming or conforming but obsolete [[ then I meant "inside the text/html syntax". I did not intend - at all or in any way - to state anything about what should be possibe or allowed inside the XML syntax. Status today is that the RFC for the 'text/html' MIME type says that XHTML 1.0 defines a profile which is compatible with HTML. This profile is, as we know, defined by the infamous Appendix C. And Appendix C does not forbid the XML declaration - it instead sounds more as if it recommend it. This is my basis for sahying that HTML5 could define some variants of it as "obsolete but conforming". I see this as similar to how HTML5 defines the XHTML1.0 strict DOCTYPE as OBSOLETE but conforming: despite that it is a XHTML doctype, HTML5 states that it is obsolete bt conforming text/html. (Obsoleteness is usually a state that is "awarded" to things that once was conforming.) Another simiarlity is that other XHTML1 doctypes are considered non-conforming. I thus suggest a similar status, based on a similar evaluation, for the XML declaration: certain uses of it should be conforming. -- 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 Tuesday, 15 February 2011 07:23:22 UTC