W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: ISSUE-53: mediatypereg - suggest closing on 2009-09-03

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>
Message-Id: <1251457061.2394.75.camel@ophelia2.g5n.co.uk>
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

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
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 10:58:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:50 UTC