W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: ISSUE-54: doctype-legacy-compat

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:48:46 -0500
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF218893D3.02289C1F-ON85257540.004B4A6A-85257540.004BE084@us.ibm.com>
Lachlan Hunt wrote on 01/16/2009 08:08:28 AM:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
> > <!DOCTYPE html "">
> Correction: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "">
> > 1) Single DOCTYPE, with a null quoted string
> Considering the fact that both you and DanC [1] mistakenly typed a
> non-well-formed version of the DOCTYPE, and that on occasion, even I
> have accidentally omitted the PUBLIC keyword while typing the HTML4
> DOCTYPEs, I think this is evidence that it is more prone to errors and
> that we should not encourage people to use it at all.  I think it is
> better to actively discourage its use and this is one reason why the
> perjorative alternatives are preferred.

Given that attaining consensus on preference on this issue is apparently
not attainable, I am looking for answers in the form of "I could not live

> Additionally, it's not clear to me which tools besides XSLT have
> difficulty outputting <!DOCTYPE html> in HTML serialisations, and thus
> what problem we are solving by changing "XSLT-compat" to
> "legacy-compat".  (If such tools have been mentioned in previous
> threads, then I may have missed them)

One such tool is mentioned in the bug report[8] cited in my prior email:

[8] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6336

- Sam Ruby.
Received on Friday, 16 January 2009 13:49:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:41 UTC