- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:14:46 +0200
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- 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>
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:45:05 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> Can you answer my questions assuming the last sentence is dropped. That >> is, why is this a requirement for media type registrations and where is >> that documented? > > I don't know whether it's documented (and where), but I think it's > obvious as the media type is supposed to describe existing content as > well. For HTML content my experience is that HTML5 does a much better job at that than HTML1-4. Consider for instance that 95% or so documents have a syntax error. That is kind of the point of HTML5, to describe existing content better than HTML1-4. On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:49:58 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > 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. I'll leave this to the parallel thread. >> 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. I don't see how you figure out which HTML version the document is in. I also wonder if you think it is more sensible for UAs to process non-HTML5 documents using SGML as HTML2-4 arguably prescribe. >>>> 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". Mkay. > (*) I do realize that there is disagreement about whether that's true > for the 5th edition, but that's an orthogonal problem. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 12:15:38 UTC