W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2010

Re: ISSUE-4 - versioning/DOCTYPEs

From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 20:52:45 -0400
Message-ID: <SNT142-w1601F8DCB910EC8BA1F13B3E20@phx.gbl>
To: <public-html@w3.org>

 
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:02 UTC