W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > February 2011

[Bug 12073] Permit restricted use of <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:25:52 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Pposi-00025E-42@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12073

--- Comment #8 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-02-16 21:25:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)

> (IMHO it should be minimal without unnecessary talismans)

The spec says that ]] Authors should not use obsolete permitted DOCTYPEs, as
they are unnecessarily long.[[ The spec could say a similar thing about the XML
declaration.

> IE6 is fading away, and I think conforming HTML5 documents should never be
> allowed to be in quirks mode, so this use case for me is an argument against
> allowing XML declaration.

IE6 is fading away. But, nevertheless, I am sympathetic to that line of
thought. 

> What editors are we talking about? Do they support other HTML5 elements and
> polyglot rules, or are they just XHTML Appendix C compatible?

Appendix C is the only  polyglot definition today, so yes.

> If they're just "XHTML1/HTML4" polyglots, then it may be a good thing to flag
> something is not right when you want to use it for XHTML5/HTML5.

Don't worry: most of them will most likely be using one of the conforming but
obsolete DOCTYPEs, which means that "something" *will* be flagged.

-- 
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 Wednesday, 16 February 2011 21:25:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 February 2011 21:26:00 GMT