[whatwg] Re: repetition model

[Jim Ley]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:44:34 +0100, Malcolm Rowe
<malcolm-what at farside.org.uk> wrote:
> That seems to me to be a fair argument that text/html has to either conform
> to the HTML4 or XHTML 1.0-appendix-C specs.

I do not believe that was either the intention of the authors or what
it says (since in other places it illustrates identifying HTML 2.0
etc.)

> Agreed. Actually, to whomever has control of the text/html MIME type - I'm
> not sure if that's actually the W3C or IETF.  Perhaps IETF with W3C's
> agreement.

It's the W3C - see the RFC.

> There are, of course, exceptions for stuff that's in development, otherwise
> you'd never be able to develop anything :)

No, that's what the various x. etc. trees are for. (or prs.hixie or
vnd.opera :-)

> But yes, generally, I agree. We need to submit this to a standards
> organisation after we've got a stable spec, and after we've got two
> interoperable implementations.

That seems rather late, seen as the implementations have to be of
release quality, and they'll be supporting something which is almost
bound to change before making it through the standards org.  Or do you
really think they'll just rubber stamp it?  the W3 process doc doesn't
support such.

Jim.