- From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:38:46 -0400
- To: <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Philip TAYLOR in Bolsehle [mailto:Ralf.Kahle@t-online.de] > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 12:48 PM > To: Justin James > Cc: public-html@w3.org > Subject: Re: Is "breaking the Web" with HTML 5 a non issue? > > > > Justin James wrote: > > > This seems like less than ideal behavior. What is the point of > DOCTYPE if > > UAs don't make any kind of decisions based upon it? > > > > I think this might be a very good time, then, to propose that the > HTML 5 > > spec state clearly that text/html content should be parsed as HTML 4 > > ==> "should be parsed according to its declared DOCTYPE". Why should > HTML 3.2 not be parsed as such, if the parsing model required differs > from that of HTML 4.01 ? The specification should also address > how to parse documents for which there is no DOCTYPE, or for > which there is no public identifier and for which the URL > for the DTD can no longer be resolved. Even better than what I suggested! :) Thanks! J.Ja
Received on Monday, 22 September 2008 16:39:35 UTC