- From: Craig Francis <craig@synergycms.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:18:35 +0100
- To: Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Cc: Stephen Stewart <beowulf@carisenda.com>, "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
On 21 Jun 2007, at 23:00, Philip & Le Khanh wrote: > I would personally far prefer to continue with the more formal > DOCTYPE/DTD specifier, as in > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 5.0 Strict//EN"> > > assuming that we do indeed ultimately produced a DTD (yes, I know > this is far from certain, but I for one would be very happy if > HTML 5 continued to be based on SGML rather than apparently being > designed /ex nihilo/). I suppose one point I would like to raise is that the proposed DOCTYPE does not show that it is a W3C specification... I am fairly sure that, although the W3C is regarded as a pretty definative source of standards, it cannot just take complete ownership of HTML... Its entirely possible that another organisation (IEEE) could decide to make their own HTML specification.
Received on Saturday, 23 June 2007 13:20:48 UTC