- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:15:32 -0500
- To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- CC: Brad Pettit <Brad.Pettit@microsoft.com>, "w3c-html-wg@w3.org" <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>, XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
The namespace does not identify the markup language. All of our various markup languages use the same namespace, for good or for ill. SVG had it right; multiple namespaces for multiple languages. But we dont have that option. Steven Pemberton wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:31:06 +0200, Brad Pettit > <Brad.Pettit@microsoft.com> wrote: >> Requiring the DOCTYPE makes it more straightforward to differentiate >> XHTML when there is no http content-type available. Otherwise it >> could appear like quirky HTML. > > I partly agree, but wouldn't the namespace be enough? No one is going > to put the namespace on quirks HTML surely? > > Best wishes, > > Steven > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: w3c-html-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-html-wg-request@w3.org] >> On Behalf Of Shane McCarron >> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:07 PM >> To: HTML WG >> Subject: XHTML 1.1 and DOCTYPE declaration >> >> >> At the risk of reopening something better left closed... >> >> We have from time to time discussed the wisdom of requiring or not >> requiring a DOCTYPE declaration on XHTML Family Documents. Note that >> M12N itself does not say anything about this, deferring instead to the >> conformance requirements of markup languages defined using M12N. >> >> In the most recent public XHTML 1.1 draft >> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/) we indicate that the DOCTYPE declaration >> is required. In the current editors draft >> (http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/htmlwg/xhtml11) we have changed this to a >> should (this was done on 20 February by meprobably when dealing with the >> XML Schema group's comments from ages ago). >> >> I have been thinking about this A LOT this past week, and I feel we are >> making a serious mistake here. This is our markup language, and agents >> need a way to know what language they are encountering when they see >> documents in OUR language. the DOCTYPE declaration is the only portable >> mechanism we have for declaring this right now. >> >> I understand the arguments about XML Schema, and I don't care. If you >> want to validating using a schema implementation, go ahead. Use the >> schemaLocation attribute to point to our schema implementation. But if >> you happen to point to a local copy or something, how is a user agent to >> have a CLUE about what markup language you pretend to be using? I >> suppose we could require that if a schemaLocation is used it MUST point >> to our well known location... at least that way a user agent author >> could do a mapping. >> >> Anyway... I think we have made a mistake here. There is no reason I can >> think of to make the DOCTYPE declaration a should instead of a MUST. >> Having a DOCTYPE declaration does not mandate any special form of >> processing nor of validation as far as I know. Finally, removing the >> requirement for a DOCTYPE declaration is a major change for XHTML 1.1. >> If there are agents that expect this requirement from the original >> version of XHTML 1.1 they will not correctly process documents from >> this new version. >> >> Comments? >> >> -- >> Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 >> Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 >> ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com >> >> >> >> > > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 13:16:00 UTC