- 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it is obsolete bt conforming text/html.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