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.Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 11:50:41 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:55 UTC