- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:32:45 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Three points:
1) As Julian says, DOCTYPE is not the only issue;
2) Ian Hickson's response appears to me to confuse two separate
issues -- we're not contesting that the HTML 5 spec can define
conformance as it currently does -- previous HTML specs have
eliminated features and ruled old documents non-conforming to the
new spec. What's at issue is whether or not such documents can be
labelled 'text/html'. Equating the class of "can be served as
text/html" with the class "conforms to this spec." is what we are
objecting to -- that's _not_ something previous HTML specs have
done.
3) The new text in 7.2.5.4 The "initial" insertion mode is indeed a
long way from the more restrictive approach taken in previous
drafts. Whether attempting to enumerate all possible historically
used system and public ids is a good idea is unclear to me, but as
it stands I think the section is buggy, in at least four respects:
a) The optionality bits in the first bulleted list of 4 cases are not
what I expect: for the XHTML cases the public identifier should
be optional -- e.g.
<!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
is perfectly well-formed XML/XHTML and is widely used;
b) Similarly for the HTML 4 and preceding cases -- the PUBLIC
identifier is optional, so e.g.
<!DOCTYPE HTML SYSTEM "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd">
can begin a conformant HTML 4.0 document.
c) In the second (quirks-related) bulleted list, why are the
transitional and frameset XHTML alternatives not allowed, e.g.
"-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" ?
d) How does control ever get to that list in any case? The first
paragraph says if none of the first four bullets apply, we have
a 'parse error'. . . I realise this is a very basic
spec. reading issue, but I can't actually tell from the
definition of 'parse error' [1] what happens next. Where is the
'below' referred to by:
"The error handling for parse errors is well-defined: user
agents must either act as described below when encountering
such problems. . ."
?
And, finally, is a document with a 'parse error' a conformant
_document_? All of this section is about agent behaviour, whereas the
original point was about whether or not e.g.
<!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html><body><p>Hello world.</p></body></html>
is an 'HTML document' as defined by the spec.
ht
[1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#parse-error
- --
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFLaBttkjnJixAXWBoRAu1fAJkBbXMXeE/4GyLXCmBVnrcBJf7hOQCdEtYn
9Tzos3QpmegQnc9CqoD/fAs=
=aYPW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 12:33:25 UTC