- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:06:36 +0200
- To: Roland Merrick <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-xhtml2@w3.org
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 01:58:09PM +0100, Roland Merrick wrote:
> Greetings Tina, are you suggestinting creating new identifiers each of
> which signify a list of document types?
That would be one solution as I see it. The FPI identify the grammar
used in the document, and it's not likely we'll run out of FPIs any
time soon :)
I consider it extremely important that we have some way of correctly
identify the grammar(s) in use, and the DOCTYPE is the traditional
method of doing so. Unless there is a /technical/ reason why we can't
keep using it, I see no need to change it.
There have been arguments that the use of a DOCTYPE imply the use of
a DTD, but frankly that's simply an assumption. As long as we agree
that the FPI identify *a grammar*, then the connection between that
grammar and the method used to express the grammar isn't dependent on
the FPI.
--
- Tina Holmboe siteSifter Greytower Technologies
http://www.sitesifter.co.uk http://www.greytower.net
Website Quality and Accessibility Testing
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 13:07:14 UTC