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

[Bug 12072] Comments before <!DOCTYPE html> should be forbidden

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:23:09 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PqT6r-0000tb-6b@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12072

--- Comment #20 from Daniel.S <crazy-daniel@gmx.de> 2011-02-18 16:23:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Above you said: "It's marked Won't Fix for IE9." 

That's no contradiction. The development is simply not analogous.

> Other browsers are actually pretty complete in their quirks mode *trigger*
> documentation.

If you count bug reports, yes. In that case, IEs trigger documentation is also
pretty complete.

> Hypothetical! With many if's. Such as: if <!----><!DOCTYPE html> didn't 
> trigger quirks mode, would the meta switch still have existed/been relevant?

Definite yes. There is no relation of the two problems (except the noted side
effects). The meta switch is the author level tool Microsoft created so
websites can opt in to any mode IE defines.

In my opinion that switch should've been made available only to intranet users.
But oh well, now we have to live with it in the wild.

> A more realistic question: would I have filed this bug even if IE8 and IE9 did
> not support the X-UA-COMPATIBLE switch? Of course I would.

In that case you may want to file a bug that forbids XML declaration and
doctype to be written spearately using document.write [1]
Though, the fix will be shipped before HTML5 becomes a REC, which could or
could not be tru for Microsoft's browser as well.

> A question for you: Does the X-UA-COMPATIBLE meta switch mean that there is
> less reason to consider whether <!----><!DOCTYPE html> should be forbidden? 

No, but in my opinion it does't mean that there is more reason to consider it
either.

> Through the concept "restrictions on the content model", HTML5 is able to
> discern between things that are forbidden for practical reasons and other 
> kindsof forbiddance. Thus, if the practical reason for forbidding
> <!----><!DOCTYPE html> would disappear, then e.g. HTML6, could lift the ban.

I see, that makes sense.

[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=268442

-- 
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 Friday, 18 February 2011 16:23:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 18 February 2011 16:23:15 GMT