W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Re-registration of text/html

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:51:38 -0800 (PST)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <1290559439.36005.1268232698495.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org>
"Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 24.02.2010 14:42, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 2010, at 15:34, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >
> >>>   4) Should pre-existing valid HTML4 continue to be appropriate
> for serving as text/html? (Whatever we say, it'll continue to be so
> served.)
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >
> >>> What concrete badness do you expect to ensue if this "problem"
> remains?
> >>>
> >>> Do you believe in ever obsoleting specs? Does your concern about
> HTML4 extend to HTML 2.0? If not, why not?
> >>
> >> I do believe in that, but it needs to be done carefully -- for
> instance, by only removing things that have been deprecated before,
> and by adding alternatives when something gets deprecated.
> >
> > What about the concrete badness question?
> 
> I don't think any concrete badness would happen, except that people 
> continuing to serve valid-HTML4-but-invalid-HTML5 would be in
> violation 
> of the applicable specs.
> 
> On the other hand, what concrete badness would ensue if we decide to 
> allow HTML 4.01 as well?

Authors could be mislead into using a spec that is known to be vague as a reference. But then, to believe that that's concrete badness, one needs to believe that authors pay attention to MIME type registrations...

(I expect UA implementors to track HTML5 for implementing text/html consumption regardless of what the MIME type registration says.)

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2010 14:52:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC