- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:01:17 -0800 (PST)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
"Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 10.03.2010 16:33, Anne van Kesteren 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? > > Why would a SHOULD requirement be adequate in that case? Me confused. You are allowed to violate a SHOULD if you have a good reason to deviate from the default requirements. If you have non-browser legacy software that doesn't ignore @profile on content crafted specifically for that kind of minority legacy software, presumably keeping it functioning as before is a good reason. In the general case, it's still good advice to say that UAs SHOULD ignore @profile, since Existing Content using @profile has been created in a context where the virtually all text/html consumers ignore it, so continuing to ignore it maintains legacy-compatible behavior. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 10:01:50 UTC