[whatwg] Re: Is this introducing incompatibilities with future W3C work
jim.ley at gmail.com
Fri Jun 25 18:08:33 PDT 2004
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:46:54 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> > Of course not, which is why you need to be more proactive in soliciting
> > them IMO, otherwise we're not going to get a rubber-stampable spec, and
> > we're wasting our time here, we should just wait until it goes to the
> > standards org.
> I don't believe anyone (apart form you) has suggested we try to get this
> work "rubberstamped".
Sorry, I understood the intention was to take a pretty much complete
spec to the standards org such that nothing but minor changes were
necessary for it to be approved - that's my usage of RubberStamped. I
hope that's the intention, it all seems a much too long process
> WHATWG's proposed specifications are co-opting the meaning of the
> "text/html" MIME type just as they are co-opting the meaning of the
> "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" namespace. There really is no difference.
I don't actually agree with this interpretation of the text/html
registration (I believe it applies to any HTML, e.g. ISO-HTML) so the
WHATWG's HTML would also be valid, if I'm wrong (and I probably am)
then I would oppose it yes, and would suggest
application/prs.hixie.html (and a +xml one for the XML version) for
development and testing yes.
> By "awful" I presume you mean "standards compliant".
Yep, but it's an awful standard.
> The parsing change is
> the one change I explicitly mentioned was different between XHTML and HTML
> processing. It's amusing to note that this is the part of my e-mail that
> you decided to ignore in your reply, especially in light of your
> accusations that I was ignoring your feedback.
No, I've not accused you of ignoring anything, just missing it... I
generally don't bother commenting on stuff I fully agree with or are
obvious, but I didn't consider the failing to render something a
parsing issue. In any case I don't have a process here, I'm only here
to try and improve my life with a good spec, I can ignore all I want
should I choose to, I've not tied my hands.
> > they fixed this along with their mime-type sniffing spec violations.
> Do you have any bug numbers for the "mime-type sniffing spec violations",
> or, failing that, any URIs demonstrating them?
Some of it is documented in:
(where it sniffs text/plain) the previous firefox release also
announced with relish that now files would be sniffed for media
mime-types even if the mime-type is text/plain. No idea of the
bugzilla references, bugzilla is a web-app I've never managed to get
the hang of.
More information about the whatwg