W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > February 2010

Re: HTML 5 media type spec and HTML 2, 3.2, 4.x usage

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
Message-ID: <1265068669.3812.193.camel@pav.lan>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:03:59 UTC