- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:47:07 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>, public-html-comments@w3.org, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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. I'd love to clarify this, if you could be more specific about what is 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. Why? It seems reasonable to require that when a product be released, it support the latest standards. > But anyway, a registry usually changes faster than a standard, So? > > 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... Fixed. > > > 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? Having a stand-alone document is not the same as having the registration in the spec. I can't really see how it could be considered consistent. > > 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. If it ever does not, file a bug. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 19:45:56 UTC