On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:06:41 +0100, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Sure, if the spec. is changed so that all past HTML docs conform to > the it, but as I said, I don't think that's a reasonable requirement > on this or any other spec. > > My understanding of the discontinuity wrt the text/html media type > registration prose is this: > > 1) Previous media type registrations for text/html have explicitly > grandfathered in documents allowed by all earlier registrations of > text/html; That does not seem to be true. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2854 obsoletes various text/html media type features of HTML2 (level parameter) and HTML32 (version parameter) and only references HTML4 and XHTML1 as published specifications related to the media type. > 2) IETF rules for media type re-registrations requires that sort of > grandfathering; It seems there is a precedent. > 3) The current draft media type registration section of the HTML 5 > spec. does _not_ contain any such grandfathering. It seems a case can be made for that not to be needed based on RFC 2854. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 15:12:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:32 UTC