W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2008

Re[2]: <?doctype ?> instead of <!doctype >

From: Dmitry Turin <html60@narod.ru>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 15:05:02 +0200
Message-ID: <1025622406.20080109150502@narod.ru>
To: public-html@w3.org

David,

>> I propose to unify and use <?tag ?> in any case.
DH> They have different meanings and are used for different things
Try to stand on point of view, that
  <tag> can be considered like _StdOut_ (standard stream of output), and
  <?tag?> like _StdErr_ (standard stream of errors).
I propose to draw a distinction in this direction.
It apparently will be obviously, if you read my file
http://sql50.euro.ru/sql5.ppt slide #67-#86 (topic "Developing of XML").
Let <?tag?> will be stream of commands
  <?finish?>
  <?dbms?><?book?><?/dbms?>
  <?nop?>
  <?dflt?>
  <?shift?>
and errors
  <?res?>
That you have no doubts:
i want, that browser _react_ at this commands.


P.S.
What about stream of data, compare
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#x-www-form-xml
and my proposals
http://html60.euro.ru/site/html60/en/author/quest_eng.htm ,
http://html60.euro.ru/site/html60/en/author/looker_eng.htm ,
http://html60.euro.ru/site/html60/en/author/vml-form_eng.htm
(on the one hand) with idea of <?tag?> (on the other hand).


---

>> Now we have two way to write service information in html-document:
>> 1) in <!name > (e.g. <!doctype >
DH> A markup declaration.
+
>> 2) in <?name?> (e.g. <?xml ?>, <?xml-stylesheet ?>
DH> A processing instruction.
O my god, you are deriving conceptual conclusion from linguistical
property. I can't be agreed with this method.

DH> so it would never work.
+
DH> As an example, browsers would not recognize "<?doctype html?>>"
Until manufacturers will write code, which react at
"<?doctype html?>" and "<!doctype html >" identically.


Dmitry Turin
HTML6     (6.5.1)  http://html60.euro.ru
SQL5      (5.9.1)  http://sql50.euro.ru
Unicode7  (7.2.1)  http://unicode70.euro.ru
Computer2 (2.0.2)  http://computer20.euro.ru
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2008 13:29:23 UTC

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