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

Re: ISSUE-54: doctype-legacy-compat

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:18:21 +0100
Message-ID: <4970CF6D.5000302@malform.no>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Henri Sivonen 2009-01-16 14.54:
> On Jan 16, 2009, at 14:14, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote on 01/09/2009 04:53:21 AM:

    [... the "legacy-compat" problem -...]
>> Second, Chris Wilson has indicated[4] that he is not happy with 
>> legacy-compat, and at that point we no longer have consensus.
> I agree with the point Chris made about the ambiguity of what legacy the 
> compatibility is about. That is, authors might think that 
> "legacy-compat" means compatibility with legacy consumers rather than 
> legacy producers.
> This is a reason why "XSLT-compat" is better. It's clear that it's there 
> for compatibility with a pre-existing W3C spec.

Compatibility with a "pre-existing W3C spec" is a good point. But 
isn't it the *old style DOCTYPE syntax* rather than old style 
tools we want to support? Focusing on the syntax would give even 
users of old style tools a reason for not using the compatibility 
DOCTYPE! (Wheras "XSLT-compat" would could lead to "aha, this is 
for me".)

Hence, something like this - or similar:

<!DOCTYPE html public "oldstyle">

I think that the use of "oldstyle" rather than "compat" would make 
it more unattractive and more difficult to misunderstand.

[ My primary reason for preferring "" over "legacy-compat" or 
"XSLT-compat" is that I feel both ar misleading. Hence this 
proposal, with a string that I find more meaningful.]
leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 16 January 2009 18:19:10 UTC

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