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

Re: several messages

From: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:04:47 +0200
Message-ID: <48BDB87F.9070508@kosek.cz>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Jirka Kosek wrote:
>> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Based on the above feedback, I've allowed "XSLT-generated" as a string
>>>> in the DOCTYPE.
>>>> ...
>>> I think Mike's proposal to allow the empty string instead got more
>>> positive feedback.
>> This was also my understanding.
> 
> This isn't a popularity contest. The reasoning behind not using the empty 
> string was quite adequately given by both Henri and Smylers, and quoted in 
> my original message.

My reading of the following message from Henri is that he is in favor of
empty string

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/0900.html

and also that Henri was against using identifier in the form of FPI
(-//...//...//EN) rather then being strongly in favor of "XSLT-whathever".

But what is actually more important in regard to concerns previously
raised by Henri and Smylers is which of the following two variants

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "">

and

<!DOCYTPE HTML PUBLIC "XSLT-generated">

could lead to a greater confusion between not well educated web
developers. IMHO the later variant is worse because without knowing the
exact reason for having this in HTML5 spec one could thing that public
identifier here is place for mentioning which system was used for
producing HTML5 output. So I can imagine that those people who produced
pages full of Java applets and animated GIFs in the late 90s will
produce pages starting with

<!DOCYTPE HTML PUBLIC "PHP-generated">

or

<!DOCYTPE HTML PUBLIC "Ruby-generated">

or

<!DOCYTPE HTML PUBLIC "<put your favorite processor here>-generated">

!DOCTYPE in the early 10s as they would thing it is just much cooler
then having vanilla <!DOCTYPE HTML>

That being said, I'm very glad that XSLT is now accommodated in HTML5
spec and many thanks should go to Ian for digesting tons of discussion
related to this issue. But at the same time I think that for reason
given above, empty string is much more reasonable identifier then
"XSLT-generated".

Thanks,

				Jirka


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------


Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 22:05:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:58 UTC