Re: Doctype on text/html Pages (Was: [author-guide] Character Entity References Chart)

Robert J Burns writes:

> On Jul 22, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Smylers wrote:
>
> > Robert J Burns writes:
> >
> > > ... section 2.1 says that a Doctype is not required by the draft
> > > while section 8.1 says that it is required by the draft: both
> > > normative.  ...  a text/html serialized HTML5 document either does
> > > or doesn't require a doctype depending on whether the author
> > > follows section 2.1 or  section 8.1.
> >
> > The only mention of "doctype" I can see in section 2.1 is:
> >
> >  Such XML documents may contain a DOCTYPE if desired, but this is not
> >  required to conform to this specification.
> >
> > Clearly that's talking about XML, so isn't relevant to text/html.
>
> I'm not sure that's clear at all.

It says "XML documents".  The text/html serialization of HTML 5 isn't an
XML document.  Therefore that statement cannot apply to the text/html
serialization.  What is unclear about that?

> Why would we be discussing the optional use of a doctype other than
> HTML5's doctype?

I don't know, but that isn't relevant to rebutting the above scare that
the spec contradicts itself on whether the text/html serialization
requires a doctype.

That rebutal was all I was adding here -- pointing out that sentence
only applies to XML.  What effect it has on XML is a different matter
(which I see others are debating), but whatever that is unambiguously
does not affect text/html.

> Again, this has taken us away from the original discussion of named
> character references which do not have anything to do with this
> doctype discussion.

That's why I changed the Subject: on this thread to cover just the point
that I was mentioning!

Smylers

Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2008 16:33:01 UTC