This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
public-html-comments posting from: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> http://www.w3.org/mid/4E04C3FB.4090603@gmail.com Hello all, Cross-posting this to Apps-discuss and html-comments lists. The proposed HTML5 specification (http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/), which is currently in Last Call, in its Section 12.1 updates the registration of text/html media type. I should note that we have RFC 2854 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2854) which also specifies this media type. Therefore the question is what should be done with this RFC. Should it be retired upon approval of HTML5? Or something else? Mykyta Yevstifeyev
RFC 2854 is extremely incomplete and outdated. I don't know what the proper procedures are here or who has to do them, but HTML5 should certainly be what's registered for the MIME type if the maintainers of the MIME type registry want it to be accurate. I don't know who from the HTMLWG, if anyone, would be interested in taking the effort to see that this happens.
(In reply to comment #1) > RFC 2854 is extremely incomplete and outdated. I don't know what the proper > procedures are here or who has to do them, but HTML5 should certainly be what's > registered for the MIME type if the maintainers of the MIME type registry want > it to be accurate. I guess the proper procedure would be to issue an RFC that obsoletes the old one along the lines of http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5791 > I don't know who from the HTMLWG, if anyone, would be > interested in taking the effort to see that this happens. CCing Julian who is one of the authors of RFC 5791.
Created attachment 1006 [details] Draft for informational RFC obsoleting RFC 2854. When the time comes to issue such an RFC, it will be easy enough to draft one, as RFC5791 demonstrates. I've attached such a draft, in the format accepted by xml2rfc.
(In reply to comment #3) > Created attachment 1006 [details] > Draft for informational RFC obsoleting RFC 2854. > > When the time comes to issue such an RFC, it will be easy enough to draft one, > as RFC5791 demonstrates. I've attached such a draft, in the format accepted by > xml2rfc. A message personally to Edward was sent regarding this Internet-Draft.
mass-moved component to LC1
It should be retired yes. Not sure whether to close this bug or not.
(In reply to comment #6) > It should be retired yes. Not sure whether to close this bug or not. Well, W3C should definitely seek advice of IETF on what to do. During some discussions on apps-discuss@ietf.org list it was noted that if HTML5 defines the entity format which will be incompatible with previous versions of HTML, and, particularly, format defined in RFC 2584, the registration's update may get rejected by IESG. Please see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02845.html. If the registration gets approved, RFC 2584 will indeed need to be deprecated.
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: <http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html>. Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: I guess we'll find out what happens. HTML as defined before never matched reality.