- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:44:56 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, public-html@w3.org, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak, Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:54:11 -0700: > > <commenting with HTML WG chair hat off> > > I understand the desire to satisfy the MIME registration > compatibility requirements. However, it looks to me like this > proposed text makes HTML 2.0, HTML 3.2, and HTML 4.0 conforming for > the text/html MIME type, whereas RFC2854 only allowed HTM 4.01. Are > these additions intentional? Henry's proposal most definitely categorizes HTML2, HTML32, HTML4 and HTML401 documents as only *previously* conforming: ]] >> This specification defines rules for processing not only >> conforming [but] also non-conforming documents, including those >> which conform to the early specifications listed above. [[ Docs may still [aspire to] conform to those "early specifications listed above", but that does not mean that they conform to the current specification. Btw, RFC2854 uses a lot of place to tell that HTML consumers must be prepared for all kinds of HTML - not only the officially sanctioned syntax and not only the *previously* officially sanctioned syntax. And the above quote form the text that Henry forwarded reflects what RFC2854 had to say about what was *then* currently non-official HTML. The new situation, today, is that it has now become specced, inside the current HTML specification itself, how HTML consumers should react to all these variants of non-conforming HTML. > I don't understand the purpose of > expanding conformance relative to the previous registration to > include these long-obsolete specifications. I guess I don't understand this. I see no "expanding conformance" to anything. > Also: RFC2854 allows a profile of XHTML 1.0 (presumably Appendix C) > to be sent as text/html, whereas the proposed text below does not. > Is the omission intentional? Well, "allows"? Do you think it should allow XHTML1, without at the same time not also "allowing" HTMl401? I agree that the text that Henry forwarded does not say anything about XHTML1, though. It should - in the end - probably say that even to send text/html with a XHTML1 DOCTYPE is now not anymore the current specification. But it should probably also say something about other variants of XHTML1 and whether they can be sent as text/html or not. PS: FWIW, if XHTML1 had been specced after HTML5 had been specced, then appendix C could have decided to allow a wider set of XHTML-isms. -- Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 18:45:31 UTC