- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:57:49 -0600
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 23:31 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 1 Feb 2010, Dan Connolly wrote: > > > > > > Is this a new problem with the text/html registration in HTML5, or is > > > this a long-standing problem? > > > > It wasn't a problem at all before HTML 5, because each spec for > > text/html pretty much said "all existing HTML standards are fine". > > Could you point to the text in the current text/html RFC that does this, > so that I could use that same text in HTML5? Umm... no, not exactly; my memory was buggy; what is says is: Published specification: The text/html media type is now defined by W3C Recommendations; the latest published version is [HTML401]. In addition, [XHTML1] defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML 4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html. -- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt > Also, do we want to make pages that trigger quirks mode be conforming, > even if they used to be? Similarly, do we keep pages that use known-bad > features like <font> conforming if they use older DOCTYPEs? Or do we want > to (retroactively) make such pages less conforming, on the basis that it > was a mistake to make them conforming in the first place, or on the basis > that we know better now? Good questions. I *think* I'm satisfied with just the few "obsolete permitted DOCTYPE"s. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 1 February 2010 23:57:51 UTC