- From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:00:32 -0700
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >If we require a version marker (and I don't necessarily agree we >should), it should be in an attribute on the root element... ><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//HTML 5.0//EN"> Or, as I've suggested: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "html5"> >2) In XML, a DOCTYPE declaration is not required, and in fact is not >recommended for languages that do not have a DTD (either because they Bah. Recommendations. (oh, wait, that was just for SGML, was it?) >3) Other modern XML-based languages use a version attribute, not >versioning in a DTD declaration. Examples include XSLT and SVG. We >wouldn't want the XML serialization of HTML5 to diverge from this. I don't want the version attribute left off, then. If required, then I think it's morally equivalent to the above <!DOCTYPE> I gave, but just not as pretty. If you feel that strongly, I could probably be beaten in to submission. >4) In a compound document by inclusion (CDI) scenario, there is no >place to put the doctype. If HTML behavior is to be versioned, then You could (in the xmlns URI) identify the version. -C
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:01:19 UTC