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

Re: ISSUE-4 - versioning/DOCTYPEs

From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 17:20:42 -0400
Message-ID: <SNT142-w50154048B33CB315CFF854B3E20@phx.gbl>
To: <public-html@w3.org>
CC: <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>


Hi.
From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>  
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 02:59:59 +0200
>>> 0) The problem: Some HTML5 ideologues think that XHTML should only be
>>> produced in documents with the .xhtml file suffix.
>> 
>> It's a question of having a clue about the document without opening
>> and parsing the document. There are cases (local storage for instance)
>> where the file extension is really the only available information.
> But HTML5 has two syntaxes - at least if we judge things according to 
> tradition: in HTML5, then <img/> is permitted inside text/html.
ME Hmm -- Again I think it's fine though to have documents that are at once html and xhtml and if some editors need the document type declaration too to straighten out the code for this then it should continue to exist;
is there some reason to outlaw it?
 

However I want to leave xhtml and html as separate issues from php; php is not a w3c-defined specification but xhtml and xml are, to my understanding.
 
(I'm sorry I have not had time to look at this in more detail.)
 
Best,
 
C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar@hotmail.com


 		 	   		  
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 21:21:15 UTC

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