Updating "Recommended list of DTDs"

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

>   * 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:
) 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

season's greetings, Gérard Talbot

Received on Tuesday, 29 December 2009 06:58:14 UTC