W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Backward-compatibility of text/html media type (ACTION-334, ACTION-364)

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
Message-ID: <1265122566.3812.199.camel@pav.lan>
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 12:32 +0000, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:32 UTC