- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:40:29 -0500
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, public-html@w3.org, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 21:06 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Henry S. Thompson wrote: [...] > > Hope this helps, > > Indeed, thanks, that's very helpful. > > Looking back at the proposal with this in mind: Umm... "the proposal" is ambiguous; the 20 Apr msg had a distinct proposal from the 15 Apr msg. In any case... > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Henry S. Thompson wrote: [...] > > [with] > > > > *Published specification:* > > > > This document is the relevant specification. Labeling a > > document with the text/html type asserts that the document is > > a member of the HTML family, as defined by this specification > > or those listed above [ref Introduction and background], and > > licenses its interpretation according to this specification. > > I hesitate to use this exact text because the term "HTML family" is rather > unclear. It also removes the mention of the carefully-defined term "HTML > document", which I think is important. > > Would the following be an acceptable compromise?: > > This document is the relevant specification. Labeling a > resource with the text/html type asserts that the resource is > to be interpreted as an HTML document using the HTML syntax, and > that it conforms either to this specification or to an earlier > HTML specification. > That works for me. I wonder what Larry thinks of it; I've been struggling to completely understand his position here. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 17:40:32 UTC