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

Re: Re-registration of text/html

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:30:01 +0100
To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100310193001851217.71866d13@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Tantek Çelik, Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:36:27 -0800:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:24:59 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 10.03.2010 16:12, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> This philosophical question could be avoided by stating that documents
>>>> labeled "text/html" must be processed according to HTML5.
>>>> ...
>>> 
>>> If we did that, we'd have to make sure that this doesn't break existing
>>> uses. So statements like
>>> 
>>>   "User agents should ignore the profile content attribute on head
>>> elements."
>>> 
>>> would need to be fixed.
>> 
>> Isn't that statement true for the majority of existing usage of the profile
>> attribute? And therefore a SHOULD requirement is adequate?
> 
> If it's true for the majority implementations of profile attribute,
> then a MAY requirement is sufficient.
> 
> No reason to encourage (which is what a "SHOULD" is, an encouragement)
> breaking of existing implementations such as GRDDL processors.
> 
> MAY wording here also seems more compatible with allowing user agents
> to implement the HTML5 Profile attribute extension.

+1

And also, "may" is more consistent with HTML4. HTML4 says that it 
doesn't define how user agents should handle the profile attribute. 
Which is equivalent to a "may ignore". 
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2010 18:30:37 UTC

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