- From: Michael A. Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:57:14 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
On 6/14/07, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> wrote: > > Hi Editors, > > [[[ > 8.1.1. The DOCTYPE > A DOCTYPE is a mostly useless, but required, header. > ]]] > -- HTML 5 > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-doctype > Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:20:32 GMT > > please change the sentence to: > > A DOCTYPE is a required header. I agree. Besides, the note below that sentence already stresses that the doctype's #1 purpose is to trigger standards mode. (The only other purpose might be the detection of an HTML5-specific document.) Although not much different and not a big deal, I like one of the following wordings of that note better: "The DOCTYPE is required for legacy reasons. When omitted, browsers tend to use a different rendering mode that is incompatible with this specification. Including the DOCTYPE in a document ensures that the browser makes a best-effort attempt at rendering the document according to this specification." or just: "When the DOCTYPE is omitted, browsers tend to use a different rendering mode that is incompatible with this specification. Including the DOCTYPE in a document ensures that the browser makes a best-effort attempt at rendering the document according to this specification." Currently, the note is a little general about "specifications". It *might* be benificial to use the note to stress even more that *this* specification requires a doctype if you want things to render correclty. Or, even saying explicitly that it's not an HTML5 document without the HTML5 doctype might help. -- Michael
Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 06:57:21 UTC