W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Updated DOCTYPE versioning change proposal (ISSUE-4)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:42:47 +0100
To: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100217184247861865.f43d2485@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Kornel Lesiński, Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:26:42 +0000:
> On 17 Feb 2010, at 16:38, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> It works fine in any browser and AFAIK it always did:
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.målform.no/html4-or-html5/index

>>> 
>>> By "work" I mean doing what internal subset was defined to do in 
>>> SGML, rather than being misinterpreted or completely ignored at best.
>> 
>> So you insist on making points about SGML.
> 
> I don't know how can I make point about your use of esoteric SGML 
> features in theoretically SGML-based document to (apparently) appease 
> an outdated SGML-based validator, without referring to SGML.

I don't want to debate views about SGML and DTD. I only want to discuss 
what should cause QuirksMode. 

HTML5 says "good bye" to SGML. Therefore we cannot use as an argument 
for switching to QuirksMode rendering that the DTD/SGML in use is just 
SGML "theoretical". If we do that, then it means that HTML5 has failed 
to say good by to SGML.

It sounds to me as if you see any advantage in switching to quirksmode. 
Do you?

I can see the theoretical goodness in having a way to switch between 
QuirksMode (no system identifier) and Standards mode (some system 
identifier). However, I thought that HTML5 was about insisting on 
Standards mode?

However, it only becomes _more_ mess - and _more_ rendering mode 
differences between the different browsers - if we we start to make 
what currently triggers Standards mode trigger QuirksMode instead.

PS: All this IMHO strongly hints that parsing and syntax should not be 
specified in the same spec.

[...]
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 17:43:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:02 GMT