- From: Gérard Talbot <info@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:57:40 -0500
- To: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
- Cc: "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com>, "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>
Hello Simon, > Can http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html be updated? > I have several concerns: > * It lists doctypes, not DTDs. > * The template uses lang=en but people use the template for other languages without changing lang. (Adding text to encourage people to change lang doesn't really help since people copy examples and don't read text.) > * The template includes the XML declaration, which triggers quirks mode in IE6. > * The template uses a meta tag that has no effect in most browsers and is invalid in HTML5. > * The three doctypes for HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 are written after each other, causing people to copy-paste all three. > * It recommends doctypes that I would not recommend. I would recommend (for text/html) one of HTML5, HTML 4.01 Strict or possibly XHTML 1.0 Strict. (For XML I would recommend no doctype.) > * "List of DTDs for the CSS validator." seems like a bogus empty section that should be removed. > * "Authoring tools MUST NOT use the following list." seems out of place and should probably also be removed. Simon, I agree with all of your points, except maybe your concern about IE6 (wrt the xml declaration). I'd like to also add these: * HTML 4.01 strict uses an uppercase HTML (top-level element type declared in the DTD) in the doctype declaration everywhere in the HTML 4.01 spec (in particular, section 7: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html ) while the valid-dtd-list.html suggests a lowercase html. Maybe a minor issue... I don't think so. Consistency across W3C webpages should be normal to expect. * <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> is not required unless there is an inline style attribute in the document. * I wish that valid-dtd-list.html would formally and explicitly recommend strict DTD over transitional DTD. If transitional DTD was making some sense in 1998/1999, then it no longer makes a lot of sense today. season's greetings, Gérard Talbot
Received on Tuesday, 29 December 2009 06:58:14 UTC