- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 04:37:48 +0100
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
David Carlisle, Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:54:24 +0000: > On 20/02/2013 15:46, David Carlisle wrote: >> On 20/02/2013 15:38, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >>> David, the XHTML5 entity definitions extension[1] shows this DOCTYPE >>> example: >>> >>> <!DOCTYPE PUBLIC >>> "-//W3C//ENTITIES HTML MathML Set//EN//XML" >>> "some/path/htmlmathml-f.ent" >>> > >> >> Sigh, does it?, that's not even well formed. >> >> Will fix. ... > in 2 places :( > > Fixed in version dated 20th Feb. Since the purpose of using a DOCTYPE (especially the above doctype!) is to make sure that XHTML and HTML show the same behavior, I think the rules for the XHTML syntax should give some general rules (free from DTD-validity dependence!) for how the DOCTYPE of such documents should look like. I mention it in this thread since I think it is relevant to this extension. I have opened bug 20993 to discuss this matter, and in the third comment there, I offer a concrete text proposal for the spec.[1] [1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20993#c3 -- leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 03:38:17 UTC