RE: "Mostly useless" doctype

With regard to your comment, I would like to encourage you to submit this item to the HTML WG via the W3C public Bugzilla system [1].

The HTML WG WG's Decision Policy Basic Process [2] is driven by the processing of Bugzilla entries so your comment is more likely to have an impact if you create a Bugzilla bug for it.

If you are unable to do this for a good reason, then please let the WG co-chairs know and one of us will arrange for this to be done for you.

/paulc
HTML WG co-chair

[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/enter_bug.cgi?product=HTML%20WG&component=HTML5+spec+bugs
[2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#basic


Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

From: public-html-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of T.J. Crowder
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 6:01 AM
To: public-html-comments
Subject: "Mostly useless" doctype

In Section 8.1.1<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#the-doctype>., the current published specification says:

A DOCTYPE is a mostly useless, but required, header.

It then goes on to say:

DOCTYPEs are required for legacy reasons. When omitted, browsers tend to use a different rendering mode that is incompatible with some specifications.

So, not useless then, or even mostly useless, as it's required to ensure that the most common UAs in the world (web browsers) behave something close to properly.

Perhaps consider dropping the "mostly useless" comment to avoid encouraging skimmers to drop it. Perhaps "A DOCTYPE is a required header that primarily serves a legacy, but significant, purpose."

(Separately: It's a header? That seems an odd term for it.)

Regards,
--
T.J. Crowder
tj @ crowdersoftware / com
www / crowder software / com