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

Re: several messages

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:03:50 +0200
Message-ID: <48BDD466.3080109@malform.no>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Ian Hickson 2008-09-02 22.12:

> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Jirka:
>> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> > Ian Hickson wrote:

>> >> Based on the above feedback, I've allowed "XSLT-generated" as a string
>> >> in the DOCTYPE.

  [... Jirka and Julian's references to support ...]

> 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.

Firstly: Kill your babies. Secondly: You quoted a message Henri 
sent before the emtpy string proposal had been heard.

After the proposal, in a message 4 hours later than the one you 
quoted, he supported the empty string and explained why [1]:

>> Looks good to me.
>> I tested Firefox 3, WebKit trunk, Opera 9.5, IE7 and IE8b2, and the 
>> doctype <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC ""> seems to have the same mode effect as 
>> <!DOCTYPE html>.

The string <DOCTYPE html> was chosen because of the effect it has 
on the browsers. And this is also the focus in Henri's message.

It would be more in line with this spirit to not add a iota more 
than applications require. And they don't need "XSLT-compat".

To add more blurs the message. Wheras the empty string underlines 
that "A DOCTYPE is a mostly useless, but required, header".[2]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/0900.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#the-doctype
leif halvard sili
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 00:04:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:37 UTC