- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:22:41 +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: > On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:02:08 +0200, Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> 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? > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2854 only has references to older HTML > versions in the non-normative introductory section. > > Is that sufficient to able to answer my questions? No. Anything in an RFC is normative unless it's explicitly stated otherwise. >>> 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. > > That is not an answer to my question. But since you put it this way, why > would the media type registration document have to reference the > previous specifications? Because the point of a media type registration is to point recipients to a description of the format, sufficient to understand the document. >>> 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. > > Fair enough. > > >> I don't understand the other part. Could you elaborate? > > There are multiple versions of XML 1.0, only a single one is referenced. > What does that imply? It implies that when RFC 3023 gets revised, the reference will need to be updated. Note, btw, that it uses the un-dated URI as reference. BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 11:23:24 UTC