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

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

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:32:53 +0300
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3BC507B3-F08C-4970-A628-F9852967A2EB@iki.fi>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On Aug 31, 2009, at 14:22, Julian Reschke wrote:

>>>> 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.

Now I'm confused by your argument. Why do *recipients* need anything  
more than the processing requirements given by HTML5?

Henri Sivonen
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 11:33:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:55 UTC