- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:47:27 +0100
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen, Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:33:26 +0200: > On Feb 17, 2010, at 15:25, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > >> http://www.målform.no/html4-or-html5/ >> >> It is a valid HTML4 page, with a strict DOCTYPE. > > No, it's a page that contains the HTML 4.01 Strict public id. > > It doesn't use *the* HTML 4.01 Strict doctype. The HTML 4.01 Strict > doctype doesn't use the internal subset syntax. What kind of theoretical points are these? Do you want to teach me about HTML4 and SGML etc? HTML5 sees only one purpose for a DOCTYPE: trigger or not to trigger certain parsing mode. And until now I believed that anything that triggered strict parsing up until now, would continue to do so. > It also doesn't make sense to claim that a page that uses the > internal subset is "valid HTML4", since you could inject pretty much > anything via the internal subset. Again a theoretical point. The issue that I have taken up is that Minefield, Safari 4 and Opera 10.5beta _they_ do use that DOCTYPE to do something bad. You - these browsers - are in effect using the version info - the DOCTYPE - to change the parsing behaviour. It is not how Maciej believed - that HTML5 contains a definite list of those DOCTYPEs that trigger quirks mode. This will kill off the extendibility of already published versions of HTML. Or make quirksmode popular. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 13:48:02 UTC