W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: ISSUE-54: doctype-legacy-compat

From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:59:14 +0100
Message-ID: <497092B2.3050102@opera.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
CC: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Sam Ruby wrote:

The main proposal here seems to be <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "">. AFAIK this 
doctype not solve the original problem for some tools which are 
incapable of generating a doctype with a PUBLIC component but no SYSTEM 
component [1]. Therefore this seems like a poor solution, at the very 
least <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "" ""> should be used (assuming these tools 
are OK with a null SYSTEM).

> 1) Single DOCTYPE, with a null quoted string

I am not happy with this ("cannot live with this" if I am forced into a 
binary choice). It makes the doctype almost twice as long and carries no 
extra information. Authors should not have to pay this tax.

> 2) DOCTYPE with an optional null quoted string

I can live with this but it seems suboptimal since the differences 
between this and <!doctype html> and the longer form are not 
self-descriptive.

> 3) Two DOCTYPES: one "preferred" with no quoted string, and one 
> "pejorative" with the value "legacy-compat".

I can live with this but, given that others cannot live with this, I 
would prefer the long form be
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "sgml-compatibility" "">

or possibly some alternative with a URI in the SYSTEM component if there 
are significant tools that cannot live with empty system components 
(XSLT 2.0?). This describes the underlying reason for the long form and 
has a certian pejorative value but less than that of "legacy-compat".

> 4) Two DOCTYPES: one with no quoted string, and one with a value of 
> "XSLT-compat" that should not be used unless the document is generated 
> from XSLT.

I cannot live with this. XSLT is only one tool amongst many (and I guess 
not even an especially popular one); if this problem is worth solving it 
is worth solving properly.

[1] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090116#l-317
Received on Friday, 16 January 2009 13:58:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:00 UTC