- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:35:08 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren<annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:45:05 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> > wrote: >> >> Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> >>> Can you answer my questions assuming the last sentence is dropped. That >>> is, why is this a requirement for media type registrations and where is that >>> documented? >> >> I don't know whether it's documented (and where), but I think it's obvious >> as the media type is supposed to describe existing content as well. > > For HTML content my experience is that HTML5 does a much better job at that > than HTML1-4. Consider for instance that 95% or so documents have a syntax > error. That is kind of the point of HTML5, to describe existing content > better than HTML1-4. Yes, I agree that the HTML5 parser is a far more suitable version-independent parsing reference than anything in 4.01 or earlier. And it was my hope that HTML 5 could be the sole referenced HTML specification from the updated media type registration for this reason. Unfortunately, it's missing enough other things - as has been discussed here - to make that goal problematic. Mark.
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 15:35:48 UTC