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

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> ...
> Is this documented somewhere?
> 
> And in what way is HTML5 not sufficient to understand older documents? 

For instance, it doesn't describe the *semantics* of head/@profile.

> Do you think it would be better if UAs used SGML parsers for non-HTML5 
> documents and leave it undefined as to when they should invoke them for 
> a text/html byte stream?

I don't understand that question.

>>> 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.
> 
> Should it only point to the latest version or all five?

Depends on what changes were made. The changes in XML 1.0 are *supposed* 
to be only errata being applied (*), so the answer here would be "just 
the latest".

BR, Julian

(*) I do realize that there is disagreement about whether that's true 
for the 5th edition, but that's an orthogonal problem.