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

Re: Re-registration of text/html

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:26:31 -0400
Message-ID: <4B9D1C47.3010608@intertwingly.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/12/2010 07:03 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 3:18 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> Putting it in the spec would require a bunch of negotiation over the
>>> exact set of rules and would likely lead to controversy no matter
>>> what set of rules is picked.
>>
>> As co-chair: I don't believe that such a negotiation is out of bounds
>> for this working group. In particular, I don't believe that we are
>> stuck with the set of rules that have been picked for us. The set of
>> rules are for the group to determine.
>
> I'm not saying it's out of bounds. I'm just saying that this particular
> category of change (making text/html that has an xmlns declaration on
> the root element trigger different validation rules) does not strike me,
> personally, as a great use of the group's time. Others are of course
> free to make their own judgment.

As long as one set of rules are present in the document to the exclusion 
of others preferences, are likely to continue to have these discussions:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0315.html

I suggest that the rules that negatively reflect on high profile sites 
be split out into one or more separate documents, and marked as ones 
that people can come to their own conclusion as to the merits of 
following these recommendations.

I've placed additional comments here:

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7034#c20

- Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 14 March 2010 17:27:05 UTC

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