Re: The compatibility DOCTYPE

Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

>  The proposal had 2 variants.  Isn't "DOCTYPE html" proper enough?

No

>> 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>.

I don't think that this will work. You are assuming that average web
author who uses copy'n'paste approach is clever enough to get this and
at the same time he/she is too dumb to use the shortest preferred
variant of !DOCTYPE.

> 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.

If you think that average web developer is so dumb (I don't know) then
you can always use something very explicit:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "Human, do not use this in your document! This is
just to accommodate legacy computer applications.">

Anyway, I think that if we are going to spend so much time discussing
how should look like this completely unessential identifier, there will
never be HTML5 finished and there will be no need for this identifier at
the end.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 13:53:06 UTC