- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 01:57:36 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Cc: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > > But an ugly yet meaningful string will lead many to guess that you can > actualy write pretty much whatever you want in there. I think an empty string has no less chance of that. > Ugly string: less use, but more errors and fantasy. > Empty string: simple = more use, but hard to make errors. I don't think it's any harder. I do think it would see more use. Frankly I'm not really sold on the need for this at all. I'd much rather remove this alternative DOCTYPE altogether than make it the empty string. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 01:57:39 UTC