- From: WHATWG <whatwg@robertdot.org>
- Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:51:30 -0800
On Mar 10, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Mihai Sucan wrote: > There's no way to advertise the document as HTML 5, and it's > certainly not the purpose of the specification to do so. This is a problem. It is especially a problem now that the W3C is working on their version of HTML 5. When I asked Ian Hickson how WHATWG would handle divergence in the W3C spec [1], he said he "intended to make every effort to keep the two in sync." [2] While I appreciate his effort and I fully believe that he will do his best, we are dealing with a body (i.e. the W3C) who have a history of stubbornness and unwillingness to work with important members of the community. [3] The future is still undecided, but I don't think it is a good idea to operate under the assumption that the W3C will copy and paste the entire WHATWG HTML 5 spec. Even if DTDs are non-normative and antiquated in the HTML 5 spec, it at least provides some method for authors to indicate their intentions. If my intention was to write a document conforming to HTML 3.2, I can use the HTML 3.2 DTD to tell anyone in the future that I was using a certain set of elements. If browsers pay no attention to DTDs, as WHATWG has said time and again, browsers must be rendering "the latest and greatest" markup. If in 50 years, the "i" element has been out of use for 40 years, and browsers stop rendering that element and validators throw errors on that element, the document still conforms to the DTD. It's not the author's fault that the document doesn't perform the way it intended. Ideally, the browser should care about DTDs. The WHATWG HTML 5 spec provides no way to specify what version / fork of HTML the author intended to use. Even if browsers don't pay attention, I think it is a shame that there is no way to specify (if for nothing else, to future-proof documents). I blogged about this in more detail. [4] It seems the WHATWG is staunchly against DTDs, even if it has an appropriate use (e.g. emails in this thread talking about XML entities). I've mulled over this awhile. Since DTDs aren't normative in browsers, perhaps a "link" element with a "rel=specification" and an "href=http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/ current-work/" (for example) would be a new way to say, "this is the specification I used to create this document." It is easier to remember than the DOCTYPE DTDs on pervious versions of HTML, and it is much more human-readable than DTDs. It addresses my concerns, and doesn't use DTDs. Now, I don't know if it can be used as a quirksmode switch. The DOCTYPE seems like an ideal place to run the switch. The problem will be if the W3C (or some other as yet unformed working group that decides to fork HTML) doesn't implement a DTD-less DOCTYPE. If the switch is the WHATWG HTML5 DOCTYPE, documents authored under W3C HTML 5 spec will not render in super-standard mode. Browsers will have to have multiple super-standards modes switches depending on what version of HTML5 the author uses. IE asking a working group to provide some new way to specify standards mode doesn't make sense. That is an implementation problem that they need to figure out. It isn't our job to write their software. WHATWG doesn't need to bloat the spec for them. The IE team needs to be creative and find a solution to their problem. We're already using headers to swap between HTML and XHTML (since we still call both .html files). Headers are for telling user agents how to deal with content. It seems like sending a header "X- STANDARDS-MODE: HTML5;" (or "WHATWG-HTML5" if W3C's HTML 5 is significantly different) or setting an http-equiv meta tag to tell IE to use their super-standards mode is cleaner and more desirable as it doesn't bloat the spec, and should be more than enough for them. If their standards mode for HTML5 has flaws and they need a NEW switch, it can be changed to "X-STANDARDS-MODE: HTML6;" or whatever the latest version of HTML is. This can be set across an entire server in a few seconds via config files if needed, or set on a single folder via .htaccess files. If headers are used, that also doesn't bloat the file if is is saved on someone's HDD. [1] http://blog.whatwg.org/w3c-restarts-html-effort#comment-2020 [2] http://blog.whatwg.org/w3c-restarts-html-effort#comment-2022 [3] http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2006/08/14/angry-indeed/ [4] http://robertdot.org/2007/03/08/html-5-whatwg-versus-w3c.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20070310/781b2a4b/attachment.htm>
Received on Saturday, 10 March 2007 14:51:30 UTC