W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2008

Re[2]: <?doctype ?> instead of <!doctype >

From: Dmitry Turin <html60@narod.ru>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 15:30:39 +0200
Message-ID: <7927160015.20080109153039@narod.ru>
To: public-html@w3.org

Ivan,

>> Now we have two way to write service information in html-document:
>> 1) in <!name > (e.g. <!doctype >
>> 2) in <?name?> (e.g. <?xml ?>, <?xml-stylesheet ?>
>> I propose to unify and use <?tag ?> in any case.
IE> maybe it will create a lot of incompatibility. Look at every <!ENTITY>,
IE> <![CDATA[...]]> etc.
IE> Especially CDATA will create incompatibility. It's used in every web
IE> application or web services, e.g. XML-RPC.

Remote procedure call ?

IE> But why not, it's not a bad idea, but it requires thoughtfulness.

I went from that, mixting of <tag> and <?tag?>
<x>
  <y>
    <?r?>
  </y>
</x>
allow to get mixting of _stream of data_ and _stream of command_ .
I.e. ideology is to get two "layer", i even intend __mixted XPath__ like
  x/y/?r/k/m/?s
And i'd like to get <!tag!> free for principle-other destination
(for future).

I have some doubt about transformation <![CDATA[...]]> into <?[CDATA[...]]?>
(maybe into some more simple, into <?cdata data=" "?> with counting of
open and close sign " ).


What's about compatibility, we can save previous variant (i.e. <!tag>)
for transitional period.


P.S.
Say me, please, what is not incomprehensible and what is badly stated
in http://sql50.euro.ru/sql5.ppt
I will show this presentation in russian "mirror" committee for ISO,
and I would be very thankfull for all remarks.


Dmitry Turin
HTML6     (6.5.1)  http://html60.euro.ru
SQL5      (5.9.1)  http://sql50.euro.ru
Unicode7  (7.2.1)  http://unicode70.euro.ru
Computer2 (2.0.2)  http://computer20.euro.ru
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2008 13:29:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:29 UTC