W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > June 2010

[Bug 10040] New: Doctype discussion could be made more clear

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:27:21 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-10040-2486@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10040

           Summary: Doctype discussion could be made more clear
           Product: HTML WG
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: HTML5 differences from HTML4 (editor: Anne van
                    Kesteren)
        AssignedTo: annevk@opera.com
        ReportedBy: marcosc@opera.com
         QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, annevk@opera.com


>>>>> 2.2. The DOCTYPE
>>>>>
>>>>> The HTML syntax of HTML5 requires a DOCTYPE to be specified to ensure
>>>>> that the browser renders the page in standards mode.
>>>>
>>>> What is this "standards mode"?
>>>
>>> Most authors reading this document will already be familiar with the
>>> term.
>>
>> Half the time you seem to assume authors knows little, then the other
>> time you assume they know a lot.
>
> Maybe, or maybe you have a knowledge gap somewhere. Hard to tell. This
> is the first time someone told me this though.

If there is a link to something that describes it, then that would 
resolve this. All those modes are very complicated.... the "almost 
standards", etc.

>> I recommend you print out a picture of me, and put it next to you when
>> writing. Then you can ask, "would Marcos know this?... probably
>> not"... or "Will Marcos ask me stupid questions about this?... probably."
>
> The typical author that works with HTML on a day-to-day basis is the
> more interesting case I think. You might be glad to know your picture is
> on my dartboard, though, albeit somewhat punctured ;-P
>
>
>>>> What did this longer DOCTYPE look like, so we can see the differences
>>>> from HTML4?
>>>
>>> It is assumed you already know HTML4.
>>
>> That is a fair assumption to make. It's nice to show it because it
>> drives the point home: As in, "OMG! look how complex and stupid that
>> thing that did nothing was!".
>
> I'll leave that to advocacy :-)

If you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself... :)

>>>>> With HTML5 this is no longer the case and the see
>>>>> DOCTYPE is only needed to enable standards mode for documents written
>>>>> using the HTML syntax. Browsers already do this for <!DOCTYPE html>.
>>>>
>>>> So, basically, it's required to identify a document as HTML5? This is
>>>> unclear because the whole standards mode thing is undefined. You need
>>>> to expand this section to show how it actually works and explain that
>>>> an old doc type will still trigger HTML5 features if available
>>>> (presumably).
>>>
>>> Since that is non-conforming I don't think it's relevant for authors.
>>
>> Well, for authors who have had years of indoctrination about
>> <!DOCTYPE> it is. Bottom line is, that the doctype doesn't enable
>> features.
>
> Yes it does.

I honestly did not know that. Please explain in the doc what new 
features are enabled. This I'm actually looking forward to reading.

>> And, not even case matters when it comes to the doctype. It is
>> important to make it clear that <!DocType> is <!DOCtype> is <!docTYPE>
>> and people need to stop being religious about it (which is what HTML5
>> finally codifies).
>
> This is a completely different point from your first. Authors will just
> copy a DOCTYPE and be happy. No need to confuse anyone with
> case-insensitivity.

You seem to assume a lot of things about authors (which includes you and 
I), which are a little condescending. The doctype is no longer complex, 
so it's not likely people will copy paste it anymore.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2010 09:27:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 June 2010 09:27:22 GMT