W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2007

Re: mixed signals on "Writing HTML documents", tutorial, etc.

From: Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:21:06 +0100
Message-ID: <4676F742.8040709@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>, Maurice Carey <maurice@thymeonline.com>, HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>



Dan Connolly wrote:

[snip]

> I'd rather do without the <!DOCTYPE html>, but I suppose staying
> out of quirks-mode is worthwhile.

The whole business of the <!DOCTYPE ...> directive I find
very worrying : I confidently assume that we will continue to
rely on Validator.W3.Org to check the conformity of our
HTML documents, but how is the validator to know against
which DOCTYPE to validate if all that is written is

	<!DOCTYPE html>

?  If HTML 5 launches a pre-emptive strike on

	<!DOCTYPE html>

how is an HTML 6 document going to identify itself ?
At the moment, the DOCTYPE directive, whilst a bit
unwieldy, nonetheless conveys vital information about
the document that follows.  If the original plans
of WHATWG regarding the DOCTYPE directive are adopted,
then I fear that we may lose a very great deal.

With all of Dan's other points I wholeheartedly agree,
with the possible exception of the xmlns declaration
about which I know sufficiently little to be confident
that I am not in a position to offer an informed comment.

Philip Taylor
Received on Monday, 18 June 2007 21:22:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:01 GMT