Subject: Re: [ietf-types] [apps-discuss] HTML5 and RFC 2854

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:20:48 +0200

On 2011-06-25 13:16, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Currently copying this to [email-masked] . I personally think HTML5
> should be backwards-compatible with previous version as well as the
> media type defined for that version. So, first what should be done is
 > ...

But it isn't. It forbids certain things that were allowed before and 
which are in use.

I believe that in this case, a single level of indirection, like the one 
we have in RFC 2854, is the right thing.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 14:16:49 +0300

25.06.2011 12:52, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-06-24 19:04, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Cross-posting this to Apps-discuss and html-comments lists. The proposed
>> HTML5 specification (http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/), which is currently
>> in Last Call, in its Section 12.1 updates the registration of text/html
>> media type. I should note that we have RFC 2854
>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2854) which also specifies this media
>> type. Therefore the question is what should be done with this RFC.
>> Should it be retired upon approval of HTML5? Or something else?
>>
>> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>
> HTML5 currently tries to obsolete RFC 2854; I believe this is a problem.
>
> From <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4288#section-9>:
>
>    Changes should be requested only when there are serious omissions or
>    errors in the published specification.  When review is required, a
>    change request may be denied if it renders entities that were valid
>    under the previous definition invalid under the new definition.
>
> Note the second sentence; many currently valid HTML4 documents aren't 
> valid HTML5 documents anymore. Thus, a document updating the media 
> type registration for text/html will need to continue to allow 
> HTML4.01 documents as well.
Currently copying this to [email-masked] .  I personally think 
HTML5 should be backwards-compatible with previous version as well as 
the media type defined for that version.  So, first what should be done 
is identification whether there are some issue which make create 
confusion with the aforementioned regulations of RFC 4288.  Next, if it 
doesn't, IANA should update registration of this media type with 
reference to HTML5, not RFC 2854.  RFC 2854 itself should then be moved 
to Historic in order to represent it isn't an authoritative definition 
any more.  This won't create confusion with different definitions of the 
media type.

Just my opinion.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>
> See related HTML WG issue: <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/53>
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 22:41:30 -0500

On 6/25/11 6:20 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> I believe that in this case, a single level of indirection, like the 
> one we have in RFC 2854, is the right thing.

I agree. HTML defines, internal to the document, the version of HTML it 
is using, often in a DOCTYPE directive. 2854 points to authoritative 
documents for the different versions of HTML and thereby defines the 
MIME type. It seems perfectly reasonable for a new IETF document to 
update (or obsolete) 2854 giving pointers to HTML5 *and all of the prior 
versions of HTML* that might be found in a text/html MIME body.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102