W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2004

Re: [CSS21] Test Suite

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 23:52:37 +0300
Message-Id: <3A96CA3B-DCEA-11D8-9617-003065B8CF0E@iki.fi>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, www-style@w3.org
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>

On Jul 23, 2004, at 22:15, Chris Lilley wrote:
> BZ> What behavior do other browsers have with regard to unknown 
> doctypes?
>
> BZ> This would be a good thing to add to that quirks/standards chart 
> that was cited
> BZ> earlier in the thread.
>
> It would.

My policy has been to be intentionally silent about old doctypes, 
obscure doctypes and homegrown doctypes in order to discourage people 
from using them.

I seriously recommend using only either
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" 
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
or
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" 
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
for new content served as text/html.

This recommendation of mine has been stable and appropriate for four 
years despite refinements to doctype sniffing and more browsers 
adopting the practice. I see no good reason to encourage authors to use 
a wider variety of doctypes for text/html. (At least not until the WHAT 
WG work exits the draft stage.)

(For XML on the Web, including XHTML served as application/xhtml+xml, I 
advocate doctypelessness and using other means, such as Relax NG, for 
assessing correct element usage.)

> Results from more browsers, if available, would be good there
> too. I am thinking particularly of Safari,

Already covered in the same column as contemporary Mozilla.

> Konqueror,

On my todo list.

>  NetFront and the browser from Openwave.

Are these known to do doctype sniffing?

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://iki.fi/hsivonen/
Received on Friday, 23 July 2004 16:52:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:31 GMT