- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:41:21 +0300
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Jeff Schiller" <codedread@gmail.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Aug 27, 2008, at 23:59, Sam Ruby wrote: > It occurs to me that if somebody were to do the work of producing a > full DTD for XHTML5, such work could be considered by this workgroup > either to be included in the HTML 5 standard, or as a standalone > document. I think that's not a good idea. Writing a DTD for XHTML5 for the purpose of getting entities doesn't make sense unless browsers recognize it. Making the browsers recognize it would gratuitously break compatibility with existing browsers compared to just using one of the legacy public identifiers that browsers do recognize. (If one is willing to break compatibility with existing browsers, one might as well implement SVG output from WordPress using the commented-out SVG-in-text/html scheme. The whole point of that scheme is catering to tools like WordPress.) Writing a DTD for validation doesn't make sense when DTDs are dying technology that is documented to be inadequate and is mostly abandoned by the XML community and better schema technology exists and an actual liberally-licensed schema using the newer and better schema technology exists. Finally, I think implementations of any kind should not be blessed as part of the spec. (We aren't including canonical C++ code, either.) -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 06:42:06 UTC