- From: Sam Kuper <sam.kuper@uclmail.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:28:01 +0100
- To: "Justin James" <j_james@mindspring.com>
- Cc: "Andrew Sidwell" <w3c@andrewsidwell.co.uk>, public-html@w3.org
Received on Monday, 22 September 2008 17:28:41 UTC
2008/9/22 Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com> > > So let's either ditch DOCTYPE, or have it mean something. But to continue > on > with it being merely a "talisman" is not a good plan. > Hear, hear. In principle, I agree wholeheartedly with Justin and Philip's suggestions (and was on the verge of making the same suggestion as Philip before he pipped me to the post). However, what, in practice, would be the ramifications? Andrew has made the point that browser vendors may not play ball. If they don't, then how I feel about the issue matters little (until I'm proficient at writing browsers ;-) ). But suppose for a moment that the browser vendors did play ball. What other problems might be caused by having the DOCTYPE do as it gives every impression of being supposed to do (i.e. specify the type of the document)? Alternatively, if DOCTYPE was dropped altogether, what problems would that cause for HTML5 or for backwards compatibility? Sam
Received on Monday, 22 September 2008 17:28:41 UTC