W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Html5 validator bug

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:56:56 +0300
Message-ID: <4E9C09F8.3010706@cs.tut.fi>
To: "www-validator@w3.org" <www-validator@w3.org>
CC: Kristjan <kristjanile@gmail.com>
17.10.2011 13:47, LEIƒ Ⱨ SIỺI wrote:

> Jukka K. Korpela, Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:03:16 +0300:
>> 16.10.2011 22:46, Kristjan wrote:
>>
>>> Im using HTML5 doctype
>>
>> There is no HTML5 document type definition, and the <!doctype html>
>> declaration recommended in HTML5 drafts is there just to make
>> browsers go to standards (and not quirks) mode and to inform
>> interested software about the intent of using HTML in the HTML5 way.
>
> There is a HTML doctype - a "DT":<!DOCTYPE html>.
>        But there is no HTML5 "DTD".
> So the HTML5 doctype declaration is a DTD-less doctype.

Indeed. That’s why I wrote as I did, instead of saying “There is no 
HTML5 doctype,” as I originally meant to. :-)

Technically the string “<!DOCTYPE html>” is called “a DOCTYPE” in the 
HTML5 drafts, thus avoiding an expression like “doctype 
declaration”—since in HTML5, the DOCTYPE is just a magic string and does 
not really declare anything (at least not anything comparable to what 
SGML and XML document type declarations do).

>>> I assume long and shorthand versions should all work.
>
> I think they do work. But that the HTML5 editor ruled that there is no
> practical use for 2 names for the same attribute.

I was under the impression that this was made in order to avoid problems 
in legacy browsers that might only support the values defined in HTML 4. 
But I was unable to find evidence of such problems, so it seems that it 
was just a canonicalization operation, as you describe.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Monday, 17 October 2011 10:57:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:49 GMT