Re: Updated DOCTYPE versioning change proposal (ISSUE-4)

On 17 Feb 2010, at 16:38, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>> It works fine in any browser and AFAIK it always did:
>>> http://www.må
>> By "work" I mean doing what internal subset was defined to do in 
>> SGML, rather than being misinterpreted or completely ignored at best.
> So you insist on making points about SGML.

I don't know how can I make point about your use of esoteric SGML features in theoretically SGML-based document to (apparently) appease an outdated SGML-based validator, without referring to SGML.

Just to make it clear: I don't want HTML 5 to support SGML. In fact, I prefer the opposite, especially elimination of DTD, DOCTYPE (other than the minimal one necessary for standards mode) and SGML-based validators.

>> i.e. in text/html you are unable to use internal subset for its 
>> purpose. At best you can use it to entertain users validating your 
>> page in validators that are removed from reality.
> Validation is very important. By adding a internal subset, I can make 
> the validation _more_ up to reality.

Yes, validation is very important. However use of SGML (HTML 4) validator on HTML 5 document should not be mistaken for validation of HTML 5.

If your validator is unable to parse HTML 5 documents properly, then you should be filing bugs against the validator, rather than expecting HTML 5 and every UA to change syntax to help you litter code with workarounds for some inadequate validator.

DTD-based validation is very poor and superficial, often mistaken for document conformance. IMHO should be discouraged and I quite like that in this case discourages use of hacks for DTD-based validators. I don't think anybody would accidentally use DOCTYPE with internal subset, so it won't cause proliferation of quirks mode, but will prevent proliferation of ugly hacks and misleading "validation".

regards, Kornel

Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 17:27:50 UTC