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

Re: several messages

From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:53:53 +0200
Message-ID: <a9699fd20809030353n5463ebc2ld8d98d0781d83e7f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

Let me step into the debate:

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>>
>> Have those people who've been pushing for this change actually approached
>> the appropriate WG about updating XSLT to allow <!DOCTYPE htmL> to be
>> emitted?  If not, might I suggest that you actually do so, so that we really
>> don't need to keep "XSLT-compat" in the long term?
>
> The current charter (<http://www.w3.org/2006/06/XML/xsl.html>) doesn't seem
> to include maintenance work on XSLT 1.0.

Some things I haven't read (though I might have just missed them):
 * xsl:output has a version attribute, which could very well take the value "5"
 * xsl:output method attribute allows QName, so there might be a
special QName meaning "html5"
 * none of these require a change to XSLT

Also, XSLT cannot generate DOCTYPE internal subsets or entity
references, and people have accomodated; using the xsl:text trick if
they really needed those things, so why couldn't they also accomodate
using the xsl:text trick to output the HTML5 doctype?

I'd be in favour of having nothing special in the HTML5 spec apart
from a recommandation about using version="5" or a QName for use
within xsl:output/@method.

-- 
Thomas Broyer
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 10:54:29 UTC

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