- From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 08:07:17 +0900
- To: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Cc: Jon Barnett <jonbarnett@gmail.com>, "Michael A. Puls II" <shadow2531@gmail.com>, www-archive@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20070706230716.GA11591@mikesmith>
-public-html +www-archive Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>, 2007-07-06 22:07 +0100: > Jon Barnett wrote: > > - DOCTYPE is almost completely useless. I have been in online and > > face-to-face conversations where authors think that DOCTYPE will > > actually DO something in a browser other than change the rendering mode > > from quirks mode to standards mode > > DOCTYPE defines the dialect of the language in which the > document is written; without it, the document consists > of an arbitrary mixture of angle-brackets, ampersands, semi-colons > and prose : with it, the document is an instance of SGML which > can be parsed and converted into a meaning and/or a rendering. Philip, speaking as someone who has worked for two different browser companies I hope you will trust me when I reiterate what several others have already pointed out on the list: Browsers not implement SGML parsers now, nor have they ever. They do not dereference public or system IDs and do anything with them, do not retrieve DTDs nor use any kind of internal DTD against which to validate document instances. A browser does not need a doctype to be present to define for it the HTML dialect. So your last sentence could just as well be written, "Even without a doctype, a document can be parsed and converted into meaning and/or rendering". True, SGML tools do need a doctype to do anything with a document. But browsers are not SGML tools. Anyway, as one of the most active contributors and users of the list, I hope you can appreciate that we all need to be doing more to try to ensure that the list remains useful and focused on helping the working group meet its chartered objectives. And continuing a discussion about this topic (and similar topics that don't contribute to bringing the group any closer to meeting is goals) on public-html seems to me at best to not be helping the work of the group, and perhaps even harming it. --Mike -- Michael(tm) Smith http://people.w3.org/mike/ http://sideshowbarker.net/
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 23:07:25 UTC