Ian Hickson wrote:
Minimally the requirement for entries in the table that contain
character sets for which support is not required.
I don't see why that is a problem. The spec has all manner of requirements
that only apply to user agents that happen to also implement other
requirements first, e.g. anything to do with scripting only applies to UAs
that implement some scripting language.
The way it is currently phrased makes it confusing.
Related:
"User agents must support the preferred MIME name of every character
encoding they support that has a preferred MIME name, and should support
all the IANA-registered aliases. [IANACHARSET]"
How is this supposed to work? By updating the client every time a new
alias is registered?
Yes, just like the reference to Unicode requires UAs to implement
whatever the latest version of Unicode is.
Does it? That's a problem as well, at least has a hard conformance rule.
But anyway, a registry usually changes faster than a standard,
...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
HTML5 describes how you handle documents intended for previous
versions as well, so that's not an issue.
Well, except for the things it doesn't describe anymore.
Did I miss something? I thought I'd included everything that UAs were
going to support.
meta/@scheme, head/@profile...
So I agree that the media type registration should remain in a
stand-alone document, obsoleting RFC 2854, but keeping most the historic
stuff in it.
This is inconsistent with the W3C/IETF agreement on the matter.
How so?
...
This simply shows, that the current 'HTML5' draft does not indicate, how
to interprete previous versions of HTML documents in general, it
indicates only, how to interprete 'HTML5' documents and maybe how often
used current browsers interprete current HTML documents (what can be
wrong or incomplete).
If you want to be told how to interpret legacy content that is
contemporary with HTML4, then HTML5 does a better job than HTML4.
...
In many cases: yes. But not in all cases.
...
BR, Julian
