- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:45:35 -0800
- To: "Leif Halvard Silli" <lhs@malform.no>
- Cc: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@us.ibm.com>, "Jirka Kosek" <jirka@kosek.cz>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no> wrote: > > 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. I like this proposal. I would also support "oldschool" ;) / Jonas
Received on Friday, 16 January 2009 21:46:10 UTC