- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:13:49 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8268 --- Comment #3 from Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> 2009-11-12 15:13:47 --- (In reply to comment #2) > The XHTML 1.0 doctypes are conforming in HTML5 (even in text/html), so you > could use the XHTML 1.0 Strict or XHTML 1.0 Transitional doctype and still > validate stuff like <video> as HTML5. AFAICT only Strict is conforming, not Transitional, right? I assume the idea is to trigger full standards mode. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tokenization.html#obsolete-permitted-doctype > Considering that the XHTML 1.0 doctypes are already valid, I'm not convinced > that removing the advertisement of the shorter doctype is that right thing on > balance, since for your situation to occur, you must have mostly successfully > have served polyglotish content to begin with, and that's so hard that it's > unlikely that many other code bases have succeeded in it. Apparently this is harder than I thought, yes. So the resolution is that any HTML5 document that wants to work with XHR either has to raise a validator warning (due to obsolete but conforming doctype) or not use named entities? Or would it be a good idea to make XHTML1 Strict (say) conforming and not obsolete, but say authors shouldn't use it unless they want to be compatible with named entities in XML? Presumably XHR with named entities can't be more marginal a use-case than "HTML generators that cannot output HTML markup with the short DOCTYPE '<!DOCTYPE HTML>'". -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2009 15:13:51 UTC