- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:57:41 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 11:03 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > Well, in that case HTML5 is unsuitable as the *only* specification > referenced by the text/html media type registration. Perhaps the media type registration could use something like the following: """ The following is a non-exhaustive list of specifications and recommendations for various versions of the HTML and XHTML language which carry the media type "text/html": HTML 2.0 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1866.txt> HTML 3.2 <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32> HTML 4.0 <http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424/> HTML 4.01 <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401> XHTML 1.0* <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1> XHTML 1.1* <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11> HTML 5 <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5> [ * a subset of XHTML documents is suitable as "text/html". The primary media type for these documents is "application/xhtml+xml". ] Publishers MAY serve a document conforming to any of the above specifications as "text/html". In the absence of version indicators, consumers SHOULD assume that the document is authored to the HTML5 specification. Even in the presence of version indicators to the contrary, consumers MAY treat the document as if it were authored to the HTML5 specification. """ -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 10:58:28 UTC