- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:15:23 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010, David Bruant wrote: > > Note after "10.1.1 The DOCTYPE" : > "DOCTYPEs are required for legacy reasons. When omitted, browsers tend > to use a different rendering mode that is incompatible with some > specifications. Including the DOCTYPE in a document ensures that the > browser makes a best-effort attempt at following the relevant > specifications." > > Reading the following description, I have the impression that HTML6 will > require a DOCTYPE as well. > > Following the hypothesis that the HTML language or HTML parser > definition may change, it means that HTML6 may need a different DOCTYPE > than HTML5 in order to "[follow] the relevant specifications". It's likely that there won't be an HTML6 -- not because HTML5 will be the last version, but because we've moved to an unversioned development model where there is simply a continually-maintained HTML specification that is always current. > What will this doctype be since it cannot be <!DOCTYPE HTML>? It can be that. HTML is backwards-compatible, meaning that an implementation of the spec in 2020 will handle content written to the spec in 2010 correctly. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 16:15:23 UTC