- From: Matthew Ratzloff <matt@builtfromsource.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:37:30 -0800 (PST)
Relying on headers is a good way to get people to ignore that part of the specification. Web designers don't want to worry about headers and .htaccess files. It has to be syntactic. I don't understand what's wrong with DOCTYPEs, myself. <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//WHATWG//DTD HTML 5.0//EN" "http://www.whatwg.org/dtd/html5/strict.dtd"> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 5.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/strict.dtd"> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> The seem to serve the purpose. If there are two HTML 5 specifications, browser makers can come together to decide which one to support by default when no DOCTYPE is present. Developers who would prefer the alternate standard could use the appropriate DOCTYPE. -Matt > On Mar 10, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Mihai Sucan wrote: > > 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.
Received on Saturday, 10 March 2007 16:37:30 UTC