Re: TAG ACTION-407 -- text/html media type and legacy

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