- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>
- Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 08:57:00 -0600
- To: public-microxml@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAPJCua3_pgHwgLx9=6g05GMgdi75PBCJnVa+1yhiDD2VGPnqqA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 21:33 -0400, John Cowan wrote: > > > 6. Are bare DOCTYPE declarations allowed? If we are to have HTML5 > > valid documents that are also MicroXML, bare DOCTYPEs will be needed. > > No consensus so far. > > No strong opinion, except it's non-minimal crud. > > Maybe <!DOCTYPE sock> is useful, but I'm not really sure to whom or why. > > I always hated that <!DOCTYPE...> wasn't allowed _inside_ XML documents. > That would have been awesomely something or other. > I do not think we should allow bare DOCTYPE. I don't find the HTML5 argument compelling enough to add such a large slice of syntax. I think we should get used to having a processing stage that converts documents from XXX format to MicroXML. -- Uche Ogbuji http://uche.ogbuji.net Founding Partner, Zepheira http://zepheira.com http://wearekin.org http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/ http://copia.ogbuji.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji http://twitter.com/uogbuji
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 14:57:31 UTC