Re: 6. Are bare DOCTYPE declarations allowed?

Uche Ogbuji scripsit:

> 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.

I disagree.  One of the nice things about MicroXML documents, indeed
James's original motivation for them, is that they are a good format
for human readable documents.  You can keep them around for processing
with XML or MicroXML toolchains, but if they use the right elements
and attributes, you can also view them casually in any web browser.
The only price of that is a fifteen-character signal (sixteen if you
have a trailing newline) that forces the web browser to DTRT rather than
enabling some unpredictable quirks mode.

If some HTML5 lawyer can show that MicroXML documents using the HTML5
vocabularies don't require the doctype to be processed in standards mode,
or that standards mode vs. quirks mode makes no difference, I'd happily
stuff doctypes down the oubliette.  But until that day, allowing them
is cheap insurance.  I'd even be happy to allow only "<!DOCTYPE html>"
and no other form.  Think of it as a PI with weird syntax (and PIs as
comments with weird syntax).

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.  There are
no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language that
they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful. --The Hobbit

Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 15:30:56 UTC