Re: ISSUE-54: doctype-legacy-compat

On Jan 25, 2009, at 12:48, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Thus, "about:sgml-compat" is *not* interpreted as a URI by any  
>>> conforming HTML5 consumer. In my opinion, it is therefore  
>>> unnecessary for it to be of the form of a URI in a registered  
>>> scheme.
> What about XHTML5?

XHTML5 doesn't need a doctype and the best practice is not to use one.

The concern of using a long doctype with XHTML5 only arises if one
  * is generating markup with a legacy serializer
  * is caching only one sequence of resulting bytes per URI
  * is serving the same cached bytes as application/xhtml+xml to non- 
IE clients and as text/html to IE
  * wants to support (non-browser) XML clients that are configured to  
process the DTD and fail if the entity resolver fails to resolve the  
system id of the external subset.

To me, this looks like fringe case combined with AND--i.e. something  
very improbable to be concerned with. (I do realize that as improbable  
as it is, Planet Intertwingly happens to hit this exact combination.  
But it's already addressed by deploying a workaround at the first  

> All of this input may be useful to the editor, and I expect that he  
> will take it all into account.  Unless I missed it, I don't see any  
> "can't live with" problems identified by either Henri or Julian with  
> any of the URI schemes mentioned above.  So unless I hear otherwise,  
> I expect that both of you will be willing to live with whatever the  
> editor may decide.

I don't have a "can't live with" level problem with "urn:w3c:sgml- 
compat". It would cause additional registration bureaucracy compared  
to something the WG would register anyway for other reasons, though. I  
think "urn:w3c:sgml-compat-dtd" is undesirable, since there's no DTD.

Henri Sivonen

Received on Sunday, 25 January 2009 12:51:44 UTC