- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:18:21 +0100
- 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