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

Re: ISSUE-54: doctype-legacy-compat

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:50:54 +0100
Message-ID: <497DBFBE.8050202@malform.no>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Lachlan Hunt 2009-01-26 13.09:
> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> So, to continue an earlier idea of mine [1], how about
>>
>>   <!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "about:dtd-compat">
>>
>> Such a DTD would be easy to explain - e.g in Wikipedia, which allready 
>> has an article about DOCTYPES, including the "DTD-less" HTML 5 doctype 
>> [2].
> 
> Using any string containing "dtd" is potentially misleading because it 
> could suggest the availability of a DTD.

It seems to me that all variants of "someFormat-compat" are 
potentially misleading, so one must eventually select the least 
confusing format. The draft says that HTML 5 is not related to 
SGML. So why mention SGML in the DOCTYPE? Confusing! If one is 
able to fantasize that "dtd-compat" means there is a DTD, then one 
would also be able to think that "sgml-compat" make the HTML sgml 
compatible.

>  The exception would be 
> something like "about:no-dtd" which makes it clear there isn't one, but 
> that doesn't make it clear that this DOCTYPE is meant for compatibility 
> purposes.

Inspired from how Wikipedia puts it, on could say 
"about:dtd-less". However, then one could be lead to think that 
there would be an dtd *unless* on added that string ... And that 
would be fine, as long as one only has the <DOCTYPE html SYSTEM 
... > variant in mind.

Other alternatives: "about:blank-dtd" (AKA "an empty DTD" ...) Or 
perhaps simply "about:blank"? What better way to demonstrate the 
lack of purpose?
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 13:51:36 GMT

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