- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:25:52 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12073 --- Comment #8 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-02-16 21:25:51 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > (IMHO it should be minimal without unnecessary talismans) The spec says that ]] Authors should not use obsolete permitted DOCTYPEs, as they are unnecessarily long.[[ The spec could say a similar thing about the XML declaration. > IE6 is fading away, and I think conforming HTML5 documents should never be > allowed to be in quirks mode, so this use case for me is an argument against > allowing XML declaration. IE6 is fading away. But, nevertheless, I am sympathetic to that line of thought. > What editors are we talking about? Do they support other HTML5 elements and > polyglot rules, or are they just XHTML Appendix C compatible? Appendix C is the only polyglot definition today, so yes. > If they're just "XHTML1/HTML4" polyglots, then it may be a good thing to flag > something is not right when you want to use it for XHTML5/HTML5. Don't worry: most of them will most likely be using one of the conforming but obsolete DOCTYPEs, which means that "something" *will* be flagged. -- 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 Wednesday, 16 February 2011 21:25:53 UTC