W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2004

[whatwg] DOCTYPE shouldn't be optional (fwd)

From: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-what@farside.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 18:27:32 +0100
Message-ID: <courier.40EC3284.000005F6@mail.farside.org.uk>
Forwarding to the list, at Will's request: 

 ----------Forwarded message ----------
From: "Malcolm Rowe" <malcolm-what@farside.org.uk>
To: Will Levine <wlevine at gmail.com>
Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian at hixie.ch> 

Will Levine writes:
>> These XML documents may contain a DOCTYPE if desired, but this is not
>> required unless the document is intended to be a 'strictly conforming
>> XHTML document' as defined by the XHTML specification [XHTML1].
> Documents containing WF2 content could never be "strictly conforming
> XHTML documents" because WF2 content is not part of the XHTML spec and
> they wouldn't be able to conform to one of the three XHTML DTDs.

Erk, yes, good point. We should still note somewhere that WF2 documents 
*can't* be 'strictly conforming', according to the definitions in the 
XHTML1.0/1.1 specs. 

How about:
These XML documents may contain a DOCTYPE if desired, but this is not 
required. Note that these XML documents cannot be considered 'strictly 
conforming XHTML documents' as defined by the XHTML specification [XHTML1], 
as they contain content not defined by the XHTML specification.. 

or something similar. 

[Is there any reason this isn't on-list?] 

Regards,
Malcolm 
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2004 10:27:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:35 UTC