- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:09:56 +0100
- To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Jirka Kosek wrote:
> Probably I wasn't clear enough, sorry about that. My point is that there
> is no problem with
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "">
>
> because it is not XML well-formed as there is no need for DOCTYPE in XML
> serialization of HTML5.
The reason for having a DOCTYPE that is well formed in XML is that there
are people who want to be able to serve their documents as either HTML
or XHTML, and be conforming in both. Although this point is probably
moot in this case because <!DOCTYPE html> is well formed and can be used
in such cases where omitting the DOCTYPE entirely isn't desirable. It
does however mean that Sam Ruby's first alternative proposal ("Single
DOCTYPE, with a null quoted string") is not an option at all.
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> We could say "legacy-generator-compat".
That, or any string with similar meaning, addresses my concerns with
"legacy-compat".
--
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Friday, 16 January 2009 14:10:40 UTC