- 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>
"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