- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:05:30 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: > 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". > ... So, just to be clear: once the text/html registration is changed to HTML5, I can't serve http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html as text/html anymore, as the document does not conform to HTML5 (due to head/@profile). Unless, of course, the definition of conformance is changed back to allow it. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 15:06:07 UTC