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

Re: ISSUE-54: doctype-legacy-compat

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:45:40 +0100
Message-ID: <49720B34.2090309@gmx.de>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
CC: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Sam Ruby wrote:
> Going forward, I would appreciate it if everybody with an opinion on the 
> subject would weigh in on which of the following options they could live 
> with:
> 
> 1) Single DOCTYPE, with a null quoted string

I can live with that. (as others pointed out, that would be

   <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "">

> 2) DOCTYPE with an optional null quoted string

I can live with that as well.

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

I can live with that, however I'm not sure that we need to state any 
difference. In practice both should mean exactly the same, and, in 
particular, both should pass validation without warnings (that's the 
whole point, isn't it?).

> 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 can't live with that, for the simple reason that the value is totally 
misleading.

Later on, an option 5 was mentioned:

   <!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "about:sgml-compat">

I can live with that as well (or with something shorter like 
"about:compat"), although I'd be happier if "about" actually was a 
registered URI scheme.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 17 January 2009 16:46:26 GMT

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