- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:02:08 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > ... > I continue to wonder what I'm missing here. Is this a requirement of > media type registrations? If so, do you have a pointer? > > Furthermore, if this is a requirement, why are references from a > non-normative section sufficient? > ... Please elaborate: which non-normative section? > Apart from this whether this is or is not a requirement, what is useful > about this being defined in HTML5 if it has absolutely no effect on > anyone whatsoever? It isn't. It was Ian's choice to do it this way. My proposal is and was to leave the registration in a separate document, which can continue to also reference previous specs. > How does this work for other media type registrations? E.g. RFC 3023 > only references the Second Edition of XML 1.0. Does that mean it cannot > be used when namespaces are used in XML? Can it not be used for the > Fifth Edition? The First? How does this work? A namespace-wellformed XML document is also a wellformed XML document. So unless RFC 3023 needs to say something specific about XML namespaces, it seems to be ok not to reference it. I don't understand the other part. Could you elaborate? BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 11:02:50 UTC