- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 02:56:21 -0700
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- CC: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
The previous HTML registration http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2854 also specified likely error behavior. Media Type registrations were intended to register the language-as-used. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Noah Mendelsohn [mailto:nrm@arcanedomain.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2012 11:11 PM > To: Michael[tm] Smith > Cc: Eric J. Bowman; "Martin J. Dürst"; Robin Berjon; Larry Masinter; W3C TAG > Subject: Re: Precision and error handling (was URL work in HTML 5) > > > > On 10/6/2012 9:40 PM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote: > > I don't think that's true. I think the correct architectural choice is to > > tie the media type to the spec that attempts to be the most comprehensive > > specification for the language. That's no different from the case of the > > HTML4 spec. There was not a separate author spec for HTML4 -- there was > > just one spec. > > Yes, but... the HTML5 specification also, for good reason, goes to great > lengths to document interoperable client behavior for non-conforming > content. I'm not particularly happy having that bit as part of the > registration. The registration should describe conforming content only, I > think. > > Noah
Received on Sunday, 7 October 2012 09:57:01 UTC