- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:58:07 +0100
- To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
- CC: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
Jirka Kosek 2008-11-11 10.41: > Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> <!DOCTYPE html public "DOCTYPE html"> >> <!DOCTYPE html public "<!DOCTYPE html>"> > With respect, such doctype is not "super non-cool" but simply > silly as it doesn't follow neither rules for proper public > identifier The proposal had 2 variants. Isn't "DOCTYPE html" proper enough? > nor it shows that its in HTML5 only to accommodate > legacy content producers. The message of a recursive acronym is: For God's sake, use the acronym. In the case of <!DOCTYPE html public "DOCTYPE html">, the message would be to just use <!DOCTYPE html>. Wheras for a proper, but purposeless identifier, such as "compat", and which still is supposed to tell for whom it is intended (!), it is simple to make up a nonintended purpose. Better to let the message be in the form rather than in the content. After all, it is the form that those content producers have problem with. >> Would XSLT tools etc have problems generating such a doctype? > > I suppose that there might be differencies in serializing < and > characters between implementations as such characters are > usually not part of public identifier 3rd variant: <!DOCTYPE html public "<!DOCTYPE html">. But I guess <!DOCTYPE html public "DOCTYPE html"> is recursive enough. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 13:06:33 UTC