- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 15:20:41 +0200
- To: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Larry Masinter" <masinter@adobe.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, 28 May 2009 15:15:11 +0200, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > A concrete example is feed sniffing, where the operational behavior of > feed readers is very different than the operational behavior of > browsers. If this section is eventually split out, then the issue (with > respect to "HTML 5: A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and > XHTML") goes away. If, however, it ends up remaining, it needs to be > identified clearly as operational behavior of one type of application, > and not part of the vocabulary and associated APIs that all applications > need to implement. Why would feed readers not need to implement that section if they want to claim conformance with HTTP and still be compatible with legacy content? -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 28 May 2009 13:21:40 UTC