W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2000

Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?

From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:52:28 -0500
Message-ID: <38847E2C.F41A767C@reutershealth.com>
To: "www-html@w3.org" <www-html@w3.org>
Murray Altheim wrote:

> This isn't a programming language or a software application, it's a
> markup language. The idea is that documents don't become obsolete.

By the same token, ANSI C compilers accept traditional C as well;
when the ANSI (now ISO) standard was accepted, old C programs didn't
become obsolete, but old C compilers definitely did.  C is typical
in this respect, not exceptional.

> And as Ann correctly pointed out, there's no reason to use any more
> HTML than you need. If HTML 2.0 suffices, use HTML 2.0.

And indeed, you can still write ANSI Basic Fortran (aka Fortran II)
and some people probably do; Fortran 90 compilers accept it fine.

I realize that an HTML processor that accepted only standard HTML
would be of little use in the Real World, but XML is supposed to
have draconian error recovery.  My question, therefore, really means:

Will it be reasonable, when XHTML 1.1 comes to fruition, to have
XML (not HTML) applications that understand XHTML 1.0 but not XHTML 1.1?
Or should such applications be upgraded as a matter of course
to understand both?

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2000 09:43:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:40 GMT