Murray Maloney wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: >>> If we use the "short" doctype <!DOCTYPE html> we will confuse people >>> who are used to xml, sgml and/or html4. >> The group of authors that would be confused is far, far outnumbered by >> the group of authors who would find the shorter DOCTYPE a significant >> improvement and simplification. >> > If you aren't going to use a <!DOCTYPE properly, then please don't use > it. > <!DOCTYPE is an important token in SGML and XML. If you aren't intending > to conform with SGML and XML, please do not use <!DOCTYPE. Unfortunately, we must -- to trigger standards mode. This is the only reason, and it would've been avoided if possible. > Yes, I gather that you think that it's OK to sabotage SGML and XML > software because you think that browser makers are more important than > any other software developer on the planet As I think you know that <!DOCTYPE html> is syntactically correct in SGML and XML, I don't see what you mean here. > So, why don't you try to come up with a better way to flag HTML > documents? It's not a way to flag HTML documents, it's used for triggering standards mode only. -- David HåsätherReceived on Saturday, 14 April 2007 15:30:46 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:53 GMT