- From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:45:18 +0300
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Henri, On Jul 22, 2008, at 10:56 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2008, at 03:45, Karl Dubost wrote: > >>> Without an official DTD, no other references can be reliably used >>> in XHTML 5. Even if you provide your own custom DTD and DOCTYPE, >>> most browsers don't use validating parsers and so won't be able to >>> dereference the entity references. >> >> That is a false assumption. Browsers *can*, if they implement it, >> deference the *named* entity references. > > Implementing it is not feasible. > > * It would cause a massive DDoS attack on www.w3.org. > * It would make www.w3.org a single point of failure for the Web. > * It would be bad for XML parsing performance. > * It would break compatibility with existing content (IIRC MIT > courseware, for example) that refers to a DTD that is not namespace- > well-formed (i.e. has colons in PI targets). > * New documents authored with the assumption that DTDs get fetched > would break very ungracefully in existing Gecko and WebKit instances. > > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/no-dtd/ You severely misunderstand the topic being discussed. Karl's point is that browsers can dereference the named character references for HTML5 in the XML serialization. He said nothing about DTDs. He said nothing about DocTypes. Neither of those are relevant to the discussion. At this point we haven't even decided that HTML5 will have a DTD. Similarly its DocType is "<DOCTYPE html>" so there is not even a publicidentifier pointing to the W3C. Please do some research on these issues before burdening the list. Take care, Rob
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2008 10:46:30 UTC