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

Re: The compatibility DOCTYPE

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:58:07 +0100
Message-ID: <4919815F.5020404@malform.no>
To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
CC: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>

Jirka Kosek 2008-11-11 10.41:
> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

>>     <!DOCTYPE html public "DOCTYPE html"> 

>>     <!DOCTYPE html public "&lt;!DOCTYPE html&gt;">

> With respect, such doctype is not "super non-cool" but simply
> silly as it doesn't follow neither rules for proper public
> identifier     

  The proposal had 2 variants.  Isn't "DOCTYPE html" proper enough?

> nor it shows that its in HTML5 only to accommodate
> legacy content producers.

The message of a recursive acronym is: For God's sake, use the 
acronym. In the case of <!DOCTYPE html public "DOCTYPE html">, the 
message would be to just use <!DOCTYPE html>.

Wheras for a proper, but purposeless identifier, such as "compat", 
and which still is supposed to tell for whom it is intended (!), 
it is simple to make up a nonintended purpose. Better to let the 
message be in the form rather than in the content. After all, it 
is the form that those content producers have problem with.

>> Would XSLT tools etc have problems generating such a doctype?
> I suppose that there might be differencies in serializing < and
> characters between implementations as such characters are
> usually not part of public identifier

3rd variant: <!DOCTYPE html public "<!DOCTYPE html">. But I guess 
<!DOCTYPE html public "DOCTYPE html"> is recursive enough.
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 13:06:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:39 UTC