- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:32:35 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>, public-html-comments@w3.org, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: >> Minimally the requirement for entries in the table that contain >> character sets for which support is not required. > > I don't see why that is a problem. The spec has all manner of requirements > that only apply to user agents that happen to also implement other > requirements first, e.g. anything to do with scripting only applies to UAs > that implement some scripting language. The way it is currently phrased makes it confusing. >> Related: >> >> "User agents must support the preferred MIME name of every character >> encoding they support that has a preferred MIME name, and should support >> all the IANA-registered aliases. [IANACHARSET]" >> >> How is this supposed to work? By updating the client every time a new >> alias is registered? > > Yes, just like the reference to Unicode requires UAs to implement > whatever the latest version of Unicode is. Does it? That's a problem as well, at least has a hard conformance rule. But anyway, a registry usually changes faster than a standard, > ... > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> HTML5 describes how you handle documents intended for previous >>> versions as well, so that's not an issue. >> Well, except for the things it doesn't describe anymore. > > Did I miss something? I thought I'd included everything that UAs were > going to support. meta/@scheme, head/@profile... >> So I agree that the media type registration should remain in a >> stand-alone document, obsoleting RFC 2854, but keeping most the historic >> stuff in it. > > This is inconsistent with the W3C/IETF agreement on the matter. How so? > ... >> This simply shows, that the current 'HTML5' draft does not indicate, how >> to interprete previous versions of HTML documents in general, it >> indicates only, how to interprete 'HTML5' documents and maybe how often >> used current browsers interprete current HTML documents (what can be >> wrong or incomplete). > > If you want to be told how to interpret legacy content that is > contemporary with HTML4, then HTML5 does a better job than HTML4. > ... In many cases: yes. But not in all cases. > ... BR, Julian
Received on Sunday, 16 August 2009 08:33:26 UTC