- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 23:28:56 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, www-style@w3.org
On Friday, July 23, 2004, 10:52:37 PM, Henri wrote: HS> 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. HS> My policy has been to be intentionally silent about old doctypes, HS> obscure doctypes and homegrown doctypes in order to discourage people HS> from using them. Well, that is fair enough; but for XHTML its certainly appropriate to use a different one, for example to describe which subset of that modular specification is used. HS> I seriously recommend using only either HS> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" HS> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> Which gives standards mode in some browsers and quirks mode in others. Which is a pity. HS> or HS> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" HS> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> HS> for new content served as text/html. I tend to use XHTML 1.0 Strict for all text/html content, unless I need a link to open in another window in which case I have to go to Transitional. HS> This recommendation of mine has been stable and appropriate for four HS> years despite refinements to doctype sniffing and more browsers HS> adopting the practice. I see no good reason to encourage authors to use HS> a wider variety of doctypes for text/html. (At least not until the WHAT HS> WG work exits the draft stage.) HS> (For XML on the Web, including XHTML served as application/xhtml+xml, I HS> advocate doctypelessness and using other means, such as Relax NG, for HS> assessing correct element usage.) I agree on both counts. >> Results from more browsers, if available, would be good there >> too. I am thinking particularly of Safari, HS> Already covered in the same column as contemporary Mozilla. Thanks (although that was not clear when I posted my question) >> Konqueror, HS> On my todo list. Good. >> NetFront and the browser from Openwave. HS> Are these known to do doctype sniffing? They are not known not to. They are known to do CSS, so seem to be worth finding out more. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Friday, 23 July 2004 17:28:56 UTC