- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 06:26:38 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson 2008-09-03 03.57: > On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> >> But an ugly yet meaningful string will lead many to guess that you can >> actualy write pretty much whatever you want in there. > > I think an empty string has no less chance of that. > >> Ugly string: less use, but more errors and fantasy. >> Empty string: simple = more use, but hard to make errors. > > I don't think it's any harder. I do think it would see more use. > > Frankly I'm not really sold on the need for this at all. I'd much rather > remove this alternative DOCTYPE altogether than make it the empty string. Plan B: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC ""> Rationale: One DOCTYPE, disguised as two. The simplest way to cater for all needs without creating confusion. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 04:27:27 UTC