I've been just watching the tennis match on this issue, and my allegiance switches with every mail message. :-) Nonetheless, one small comment... At 05:41 PM 10/28/96 -0600, Len Bullard wrote: >Suppose the user doesn't include the DOCTYPE. The system implementor >puts that on their list of exceptions to handle and either whacks the >users kneecaps with a "Foreswear bad XML" or says nothing and goes on >doing what they will do if it is there but no DTD is specified. What >is the big deal? OTH, tell them that the DOCTYPE is optional and they >will never do it. It isn't the laziness of the author that is at issue. >It is the laziness of the programmer and the conformance of the system. >Even HTML application users are learning it's a good idea to put the >DOCTYPE in there. The large numbers that don't says more about the >levels of practicioners out there and the systems they use, not the >validity of the practice. Perhaps they're learning that it's a good idea to use the DOCTYPE declaration because they're pointing to various *different* HTMLs. A DOCTYPE declaration of <!DOCTYPE foo SYSTEM> tells you nothing other than (repetitiously) the root element's name, whereas an FPI at least points you to a specific intended DTD. EveReceived on Monday, 28 October 1996 19:23:55 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:03:36 EDT