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

Re: Versioning and the end user

From: Matthew Ratzloff <matt@builtfromsource.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:55:55 -0700
Message-ID: <01b201c789b6$19b5da70$0301a8c0@notebook>
To: <public-html@w3.org>

Hi Mike,

I agree.  I actually changed my mind on this issue over a week ago.


I've since decided that an HTTP header, with a <meta> tag equivalent, is the 
best way to go about solving the browser compatibility (i.e., "versioning") 
issue, which is what I was addressing in my original e-mail.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Schinkel" <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>
To: <public-html@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: Versioning and the end user

> Matthew Ratzloff wrote:
>> To be honest, I'm not sure why so many people are opposed to perpetuating
>> the standard DOCTYPE, with slight changes to remove the references to 
>> DTD.
>>  So it's not SGML.  Who cares?  Like it or not, DOCTYPEs are associated
>> with both HTML and XHTML now.  Why not:
>> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//HTML 5.0//EN">
>> Is that really such a bad thing?
> Yes it is a bad thing.   It can't be remembered by people who don't use it 
> day in and day out. An insignificant number of web authors understand it 
> and the rest just copy and paste it, possibly getting it wrong, or worse 
> just don't include it (I know I've been in that latter category.)
> This can be easily remembered and hence people will use it correctly far 
> more often:
>   <!DOCTYPE html>
> -- 
> -Mike Schinkel
> http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/
> http://www.welldesignedurls.org
> http://atlanta-web.org - http://t.oolicio.us 
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2007 16:56:03 UTC

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