- From: Mike Sokolov <sokolov@falutin.net>
- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 12:00:50 -0400
- To: Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>
- Cc: public-microxml@w3.org
On 09/04/2012 11:45 AM, Uche Ogbuji wrote: > > I think we can have human-readable documents in the vocab of choice in > MicroXML and then have them transformed to or dressed up as HTML at > the edges of the toolchain. That's the predominant approach today. > There is very little use of XHTML, even XHTML5. Data people use XML > assembled from their DBMS and fling it at XSLT. Content people use > richer vocabularies (e.g. DITA, Docbook, etc.), or wizards that do the > same under the bonnet. I find "<!DOCTYPE html>" a rather large > addition for a rather small use case. > > I agree. I guess I am opposed to DOCTYPE in any form (as it is in John's initial grammar, right?). Consider the confusion if <!DOCTYPE html> is allowed but not other kinds of DOCTYPE. It's not the number of characters that make this large, but the mental history it conjures up. -Mike Sokolov
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 16:01:54 UTC