W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > March 2007

Re: FW: XHTML 1.1 and DOCTYPE declaration

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:15:32 -0500
Message-ID: <460BBBF4.7000502@aptest.com>
To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
CC: Brad Pettit <Brad.Pettit@microsoft.com>, "w3c-html-wg@w3.org" <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>, XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>

The namespace does not identify the markup language. All of our various 
markup languages use the same namespace, for good or for ill.  SVG had 
it right; multiple namespaces for multiple languages.  But we dont have 
that option.

Steven Pemberton wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:31:06 +0200, Brad Pettit 
> <Brad.Pettit@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Requiring the DOCTYPE makes it more straightforward to differentiate 
>> XHTML when there is no http content-type available. Otherwise it 
>> could appear like quirky HTML.
> I partly agree, but wouldn't the namespace be enough? No one is going 
> to put the namespace on quirks HTML surely?
> Best wishes,
> Steven
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: w3c-html-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-html-wg-request@w3.org] 
>> On Behalf Of Shane McCarron
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:07 PM
>> To: HTML WG
>> Subject: XHTML 1.1 and DOCTYPE declaration
>> At the risk of reopening something better left closed...
>> We have from time to time discussed the wisdom of requiring or not
>> requiring a DOCTYPE declaration on XHTML Family Documents. Note that
>> M12N itself does not say anything about this, deferring instead to the
>> conformance requirements of markup languages defined using M12N.
>> In the most recent public XHTML 1.1 draft
>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/) we indicate that the DOCTYPE declaration
>> is required.  In the current editors draft
>> (http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/htmlwg/xhtml11) we have changed this to a
>> should (this was done on 20 February by meprobably when dealing with the
>> XML Schema group's comments from ages ago).
>> I have been thinking about this A LOT this past week, and I feel we are
>> making a serious mistake here.  This is our markup language, and agents
>> need a way to know what language they are encountering when they see
>> documents in OUR language.  the DOCTYPE declaration is the only portable
>> mechanism we have for declaring this right now.
>> I understand the arguments about XML Schema, and I don't care.  If you
>> want to validating using a schema implementation, go ahead.  Use the
>> schemaLocation attribute to point to our schema implementation.  But if
>> you happen to point to a local copy or something, how is a user agent to
>> have a CLUE about what markup language you pretend to be using?  I
>> suppose we could require that if a schemaLocation is used it MUST point
>> to our well known location... at least that way a user agent author
>> could do a mapping.
>> Anyway... I think we have made a mistake here.  There is no reason I can
>> think of to make the DOCTYPE declaration a should instead of a MUST.
>> Having a DOCTYPE declaration does not mandate any special form of
>> processing nor of validation as far as I know.   Finally, removing the
>> requirement for a DOCTYPE declaration is a major change for XHTML 1.1.
>> If there are agents that expect this requirement from the original
>> version of  XHTML 1.1 they will not correctly process documents from
>> this new version.
>> Comments?
>> -- 
>> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
>> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
>> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com

Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 13:16:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:30:27 UTC