- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:43:50 -0500
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM, <Darxus at chaosreigns.com> wrote: > Am I correct in concluding that my best option is to create my own > HTML5 DTD, and use a DOCTYPE along the lines of: > > <!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "http://www.chaosreigns.com/DTD/html5.dtd"> > > ? > > Can the HTML5 spec be modified slightly to say that this sort of thing > complies? > ( http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-doctype ) > > It seems like if I do create a DTD, I should not permit copying, in order > to increase the number of individually created DTDs to check against each > other? > > I'm also open to the possibility of HTML5 specifying some sort of comment > stating the HTML version number. > > > Reasons for the above conclusion: > > An official HTML5 DTD is not desired because official schemas are buggy and > people don't fix them, and having only non-official DTDs will improve > quality, according to Ian Hixie, March 2009 - > http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/help-whatwg.org/2009-March/000192.html > > Also, there does not appear to be an XML 1.0 conformant way to specify more > than <!DOCTYPE html> (which conforms) without specifying a url for a DTD. > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#dt-doctype > > The bit in quotes is a Public Identifier, which is the entire contents > of RFC3151: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3151.txt > > And the full spec is in ISO 8879:1986 (SGML) which costs US$ 222.525, > so I don't know what the Public Text Class ("NONE" above) could be > replaced with, other than "ENTITIES". > http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/html/tagpages/d/doctype.htm > > Another use that occurred to me is the case where someone has thousands of > html files, which they want to automatically validate at once, and some of > them have been updated to a more recent standard (and they want to make > sure they stay compliant with it), but others have not been dealt > with yet. > > On 07/21, Philip Taylor wrote: >> <!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "6"> as the shortest string that provides a > > Violates XML 1.0 and RFC3151 (Public Identifier). > >> If you want to check that your pages are compatible with certain >> browser releases, the language version number is a very bad >> approximation - you'd want a tool that understands what features IE10 >> supports (maybe some (but not all) from HTML4, some (but not all) from > > Indeed. ?Do you have that information? ?If not, I would still like the > option of noting a version type in my documents. > > Although the possibility of creating a DTD based on what conforms to > standards *and* current browsers are capable of is a fun idea. > >> like <meta name="check-ua-compatibility" content="ie=10;fx=5"> seems a > > Cool. HTML5 is not an SGML or XML language. It does not use a DOCTYPE in any way. The "<!DOCTYPE HTML>" incantation required at the top of HTML5 pages serves the sole purpose of tricking older browsers into rendering the document as well as possible. No checking is made against a DTD, official or otherwise. Version numbers are explicitly left out of the the HTML5 doctype incantation for several reasons; one such reason is to help prevent people from assuming that the incantation has any significance. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2009 12:43:50 UTC