- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 08:56:06 -0600
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 12:32 +0000, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Three points: > > 1) As Julian says, DOCTYPE is not the only issue; > > 2) Ian Hickson's response appears to me to confuse two separate > issues -- we're not contesting that the HTML 5 spec can define > conformance as it currently does -- previous HTML specs have > eliminated features and ruled old documents non-conforming to the > new spec. What's at issue is whether or not such documents can be > labelled 'text/html'. Equating the class of "can be served as > text/html" with the class "conforms to this spec." is what we are > objecting to It is? I don't recall objecting to that. Given a suitable definition of "conforms to this spec", I think I'm OK with equating it with "can be served as text/html". > -- that's _not_ something previous HTML specs have > done. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 14:56:08 UTC