- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:24:18 +0300
- To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Aug 28, 2008, at 17:38, Jirka Kosek wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> If we allow a placeholder public id, cargo cultists will think that >> the >> more complicated syntax is somehow better because HTML 4 had similar >> cruft and cruft exists for a *reason*, will make up a rationalization >> for it that doesn't even mention XSLT (something like "it helps >> browsers >> better understand semantics") and will start evangelizing the more >> crufty syntax to other people who will end up wasting their time >> looking >> up a public id that is useless if they aren't using XSLT. Time is the >> most valuable resource people have, so inflicting time-wasting >> cruft on >> Web authors isn't nice. > > Should be HTML5 specification based on speculations like above or on > deep analysis? What would be a "deep" analysis? Based on observing what has gotten written about doctypes during the past 8 years, I stand by the speculation that if the spec allowed both <!DOCTYPE html> and <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 5//EN">, pundits would start finding bogus (non-XSLT-related) rationalizations for the latter, because when a W3C WG puts out something that *looks* profound and complex, pundits don't call the emperor naked but try to appear knowledgeable by inventing a purpose for the complexity. Besides, the suggested string is pointlessly crufty: 1) It says DTD, but there's no DTD. It doesn't really refer to any real piece of public text. 2) The "//EN" bit demonstratably confuses people. 3) It would bring versioning ("5") into the spec through the back door. 4) There are a lot of useless slashes. Now, considering what I said about wasting people's time being bad, it's bad to waste XSLT programmers' time too. I'd be OK with syntax that solves the problem of wasting their time in a way that is unlikely to spill outside the XSLT space and waste other people's time (by pundits telling them not to write simply <!DOCTYPE html>). I'd be OK with <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "XSLT-compat">, since it reflects the problem it is solving--making the string resistant to bogus rationalizations about its purpose. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 29 August 2008 06:25:04 UTC