| 00:01 | <othermaciej> | it's actually kind of vague |
| 00:01 | <othermaciej> | see the RFC |
| 00:01 | <othermaciej> | http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt |
| 00:01 | <othermaciej> | "The text/html media type is now defined by W3C Recommendations; |
| 00:01 | <othermaciej> | the latest published version is [HTML401]. In addition, [XHTML1] |
| 00:01 | <othermaciej> | defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML |
| 00:01 | <othermaciej> | 4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html." |
| 00:02 | <othermaciej> | HTML5 would update the definition of the text/html media type to include the HTML serialization of HTML5, but not the XML serialization |
| 00:02 | <othermaciej> | I'm not sure whether it could meaningfully remove old allowed serializations from what is legal for the media type |
| 00:02 | <othermaciej> | because I don't know how media type registration rules work |
| 00:03 | <webben> | othermaciej: I guess that's my point. It sounds like that would be a bureaucratic hassle with no real-world advantages. |
| 00:03 | <othermaciej> | it does look like the existing RFC does not allow HTML 3.2 or HTML 2 |
| 00:04 | <webben> | othermaciej: ? which bit to you gather that from? |
| 00:04 | <webben> | *do you |
| 00:04 | <othermaciej> | there's not a whole lot of MUST there |
| 00:05 | <webben> | indeed |
| 00:05 | <othermaciej> | webben: the "Published specification:" section |
| 00:05 | <othermaciej> | it's written sloppily |
| 00:05 | <othermaciej> | it's unclear what other specifications, if any, alsocover the media type |
| 00:05 | <webben> | I'd have though if they meant to exclude 3.2 they would have said "The text/html media type is now defined by the latest version of the W3C Recommendation for HTML" (or something) |
| 00:06 | <webben> | rather than talking about "Recommendations" (plural) |
| 00:06 | <webben> | or actually said: "You should not serve 3.2 ..." |
| 00:06 | <othermaciej> | in any case it's standard practice for W3C specifications to define their associated MIME type |
| 00:06 | <othermaciej> | well, it does mention two recommendations, HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 |
| 00:07 | webben | resists the urge to comment that it's a bad habit of W3C specs to allude to MIME types that they might register someday... |
| 00:07 | <webben> | othermaciej: ah, I see how your reading works. |
| 00:08 | <webben> | othermaciej: i think it's a bit of a stretch on such vague text though |
| 00:08 | <othermaciej> | webben: well, it's pretty clear what this registration allows, but it's totally unclear what, if anything, it disallows |
| 00:09 | <othermaciej> | the only actual MUST is related to line breaks |
| 00:09 | <othermaciej> | and here's the worst abuse of must in a spec ever: |
| 00:09 | <othermaciej> | "User agents executing such |
| 00:09 | <othermaciej> | scripts or programs must be extremely careful to insure that |
| 00:09 | <othermaciej> | untrusted software is executed in a protected environment." |
| 00:45 | <Philip`> | Hmm, I never knew Thunderbird automatically strips out " (was: ...)" from subjects when replying |
| 01:41 | <Lachy> | hmm. I wonder why people are wasting their time discussing "HTML 4.02" and widely unsupported SGML features. |
| 01:58 | <othermaciej> | how many NETs can dance on the head of a pin? |
| 08:45 | <zcorpan> | hmm, wonder if we can limit text/html sniffing to "text/html", "text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" and "text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" so that when you declare utf-8 it's not sniffed |
| 08:46 | <zcorpan> | or are there feeds in the wild that are declared as "text/html; charset=utf-8"? |
| 13:45 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: "Error loading the folder list: Internal Server Error. Let Hixie know." |
| 13:46 | <zcorpan> | oh, now it worked (3rd time) |
| 16:13 | <zcorpan> | Hixie: i fail to parse this sentence (in a note in #writing): "It is suggested that newlines be inserted after the DOCTYPE and any comments that aren't in the root element." |
| 16:58 | <deltab> | zcorpan: "We suggest that you insert newlines after the DOCTYPE and after each comment that isn't in the root element." |
| 17:01 | <zcorpan> | aha |
| 17:02 | <zcorpan> | i read "it is suggested" as in "we have heard" |
| 17:03 | <zcorpan> | but doing so for comments after the root will append LF characters to the html element each time it is parsed and serialized |
| 17:05 | <zcorpan> | not a biggie but the rest of the section goes to great lengths to ensure that things round-trip |
| 17:15 | <zcorpan> | hmm, they are appended to the body -- not html |
| 17:37 | <zcorpan> | hmm, i should remember to take out my own address from the To field when replying to myself :| |
| 17:52 | <zcorpan> | not sure i'm fond of the ambigous ampersand thing |
| 17:52 | <zcorpan> | it's more straightforward to require it to be escaped |