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

Re: ISSUE-54: doctype-legacy-compat

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:07:39 +0100
Message-ID: <497C560B.2080203@lachy.id.au>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Sam Ruby wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Thus, "about:sgml-compat" is *not* interpreted as a URI by any 
>>> conforming HTML5 consumer. In my opinion, it is therefore unnecessary 
>>> for it to be of the form of a URI in a registered scheme.
> 
> What about XHTML5?

XHTML can either omit the DOCTYPE or use <!DOCTYPE html>.  This 
compatibility DOCTYPE is not intended for use in XHTML, which is why it 
says "sgml-compat" and not "xml-compat".  However, if it does get used 
in XHTML, it still isn't intended to be resolved.  Non-validating 
parsers will ignore it as usual.  Validating parsers that attempt to 
resolve it will fail, which is the point. But it shouldn't be a fatal error.

>>> The point of making it *look* like an absolute URI (i.e. have a colon 
>>> in the magic string) is to avoid useless GET requests to URIs 
>>> relative to the document URI in a situation where a piece of software 
>>> goes and dereferences the magic string as if it were a URI.
>>> ...
>>
>> Existing software expects a URI-reference here 
>> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.4.1>), so 
>> yes, it's good not to use a relative-ref, but similarly, it's also 
>> good to use a registered URI scheme if we choose an (absolute) URI 
>> instead.

If the about: scheme gets registered, will that address your concern?

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Sunday, 25 January 2009 12:08:21 GMT

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