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

Re: ISSUE-54: doctype-legacy-compat

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:45:35 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f0901161345t1aecc34xf3755dd057e743e3@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Leif Halvard Silli" <lhs@malform.no>
Cc: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@us.ibm.com>, "Jirka Kosek" <jirka@kosek.cz>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no> wrote:
> Henri Sivonen 2009-01-16 14.54:
>> On Jan 16, 2009, at 14:14, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote on 01/09/2009 04:53:21 AM:
>   [... the "legacy-compat" problem -...]
>>> Second, Chris Wilson has indicated[4] that he is not happy with
>>> legacy-compat, and at that point we no longer have consensus.
>> I agree with the point Chris made about the ambiguity of what legacy the
>> compatibility is about. That is, authors might think that "legacy-compat"
>> means compatibility with legacy consumers rather than legacy producers.
>> This is a reason why "XSLT-compat" is better. It's clear that it's there
>> for compatibility with a pre-existing W3C spec.
> Compatibility with a "pre-existing W3C spec" is a good point. But isn't it
> the *old style DOCTYPE syntax* rather than old style tools we want to
> support? Focusing on the syntax would give even users of old style tools a
> reason for not using the compatibility DOCTYPE! (Wheras "XSLT-compat" would
> could lead to "aha, this is for me".)
> Hence, something like this - or similar:
> <!DOCTYPE html public "oldstyle">
> I think that the use of "oldstyle" rather than "compat" would make it more
> unattractive and more difficult to misunderstand.

I like this proposal.

I would also support "oldschool" ;)

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 16 January 2009 21:46:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:28 GMT