- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:49:58 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > ... > Is this documented somewhere? > > And in what way is HTML5 not sufficient to understand older documents? For instance, it doesn't describe the *semantics* of head/@profile. > Do you think it would be better if UAs used SGML parsers for non-HTML5 > documents and leave it undefined as to when they should invoke them for > a text/html byte stream? I don't understand that question. >>> There are multiple versions of XML 1.0, only a single one is >>> referenced. What does that imply? >> >> It implies that when RFC 3023 gets revised, the reference will need to >> be updated. Note, btw, that it uses the un-dated URI as reference. > > Should it only point to the latest version or all five? Depends on what changes were made. The changes in XML 1.0 are *supposed* to be only errata being applied (*), so the answer here would be "just the latest". BR, Julian (*) I do realize that there is disagreement about whether that's true for the 5th edition, but that's an orthogonal problem.
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 11:50:41 UTC