- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 10:09:55 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
- Cc: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Aug 28, 2008, at 17:38, Jirka Kosek wrote: > > 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. On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Smylers wrote: > Michael(tm) Smith writes: > > > > - Instead of "XSLT-compat" or some other arbitrary string, why > > not just require that it just be the empty string? ... we would > > want the value to be empty, not some standard value that would > > become a de facto public ID and that apps would lead to the same > > very real "bogus rationalizations about its purpose" problem that > > Henri describes. > > I'd've thought exactly the opposite: "XSLT-compat" is somewhat > self-documenting, indicating that this is XSLT-compatible HTML. > Whereas "PUBLIC ''" is a cryptic bit of boilerplate with no obvious > purpse -- which could therefore lead to the fears Henri mentioned, of > people thinking it's needed for reasons other than XSLT compatibility > and including it unnecessarily. Based on the above feedback, I've allowed "XSLT-generated" as a string in the DOCTYPE. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 10:09:53 UTC