W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

RE: If we have versioning, it should be in an attribute, not the doctype

From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:00:32 -0700
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5C276AFCCD083E4F94BD5C2DA883F05A27D7192F39@tk5-exmlt-w600.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>If we require a version marker (and I don't necessarily agree we
>should), it should be in an attribute on the root element...
><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//HTML 5.0//EN">
Or, as I've suggested:
 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "html5">

>2) In XML, a DOCTYPE declaration is not required, and in fact is not
>recommended for languages that do not have a DTD (either because they

Bah.  Recommendations.  (oh, wait, that was just for SGML, was it?)

>3) Other modern XML-based languages use a version attribute, not
>versioning in a DTD declaration. Examples include XSLT and SVG. We
>wouldn't want the XML serialization of HTML5 to diverge from this.

I don't want the version attribute left off, then.  If required, then I think it's morally equivalent to the above <!DOCTYPE> I gave, but just not as pretty.  If you feel that strongly, I could probably be beaten in to submission.

>4) In a compound document by inclusion (CDI) scenario, there is no
>place to put the doctype. If HTML behavior is to be versioned, then

You could (in the xmlns URI) identify the version.

Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:01:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:19 UTC