- From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 20:52:45 -0400
- To: <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <SNT142-w1601F8DCB910EC8BA1F13B3E20@phx.gbl>
Hi Leif, Daniel, all: From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 13:43:53 +0200 > Yeah, the more I read about this issue, the more I think it's a question > of UI and app preferences and not a question of adding something to the > language. Fine. but I do not think it hurts to add a doctype declaration -- that was previously used -- BACK to the html5 language -- if a particular application used a doctype declaration for a doctype other than html; but at the same time it's no longer available in html5. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0290.html From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 03:19:20 +0200 > Would you expect e.g. KompoZer or BlueGriffon to produce XHTML polyglot > syntax if the document contains an xmlns attribute, is that what you > say? What does editor developers, such as Daniel, think of this? Isn't > this far to subtle? I am not an editor, have really no expertise, but I too tend to agree that this is far too subtle for what my thoughts are worth. Best, C. E. Whitehead cewcathar@hotmail.com
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 00:53:18 UTC