- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 02:08:33 +0100
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:46:54 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > > Of course not, which is why you need to be more proactive in soliciting > > them IMO, otherwise we're not going to get a rubber-stampable spec, and > > we're wasting our time here, we should just wait until it goes to the > > standards org. > > I don't believe anyone (apart form you) has suggested we try to get this > work "rubberstamped". Sorry, I understood the intention was to take a pretty much complete spec to the standards org such that nothing but minor changes were necessary for it to be approved - that's my usage of RubberStamped. I hope that's the intention, it all seems a much too long process otherwise. > WHATWG's proposed specifications are co-opting the meaning of the > "text/html" MIME type just as they are co-opting the meaning of the > "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" namespace. There really is no difference. I don't actually agree with this interpretation of the text/html registration (I believe it applies to any HTML, e.g. ISO-HTML) so the WHATWG's HTML would also be valid, if I'm wrong (and I probably am) then I would oppose it yes, and would suggest application/prs.hixie.html (and a +xml one for the XML version) for development and testing yes. > By "awful" I presume you mean "standards compliant". Yep, but it's an awful standard. > The parsing change is > the one change I explicitly mentioned was different between XHTML and HTML > processing. It's amusing to note that this is the part of my e-mail that > you decided to ignore in your reply, especially in light of your > accusations that I was ignoring your feedback. No, I've not accused you of ignoring anything, just missing it... I generally don't bother commenting on stuff I fully agree with or are obvious, but I didn't consider the failing to render something a parsing issue. In any case I don't have a process here, I'm only here to try and improve my life with a good spec, I can ignore all I want should I choose to, I've not tied my hands. > > they fixed this along with their mime-type sniffing spec violations. > > Do you have any bug numbers for the "mime-type sniffing spec violations", > or, failing that, any URIs demonstrating them? Some of it is documented in: http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/mimetypes.html (where it sniffs text/plain) the previous firefox release also announced with relish that now files would be sniffed for media mime-types even if the mime-type is text/plain. No idea of the bugzilla references, bugzilla is a web-app I've never managed to get the hang of. Jim.
Received on Friday, 25 June 2004 18:08:33 UTC