RE: ISSUE-4 - versioning/DOCTYPEs

(seems like a meta-discussion, so off-list but archived)

 

In what way does whether something is or isn’t a W3C specification
determine its relevance to “the web”?

 

Don’t you think the impact of the HTML design and specification on
mechanisms for web pages is appropriate to consider, among other
considerations.?

 

When those  mechanisms  are widely deployed and used – such as PHP –
shouldn’t the impact on design choices should be considered important?

 

Larry

 

 

 

 

From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of CE Whitehead
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:21 PM
To: public-html@w3.org
Cc: xn--mlform-iua@målform.no
Subject: Re: ISSUE-4 - versioning/DOCTYPEs

 


Hi.
From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>  
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 02:59:59 +0200
>>> 0) The problem: Some HTML5 ideologues think that XHTML should only
be
>>> produced in documents with the .xhtml file suffix.
>> 
>> It's a question of having a clue about the document without opening
>> and parsing the document. There are cases (local storage for
instance)
>> where the file extension is really the only available information.
> But HTML5 has two syntaxes - at least if we judge things according
to 
> tradition: in HTML5, then <img/> is permitted inside text/html.
ME Hmm -- Again I think it's fine though to have documents that are at
once html and xhtml and if some editors need the document type
declaration too to straighten out the code for this then it should
continue to exist;
is there some reason to outlaw it?
 
However I want to leave xhtml and html as separate issues from php;
php is not a w3c-defined specification but xhtml and xml are, to my
understanding.
 
(I'm sorry I have not had time to look at this in more detail.)
 
Best,
 
C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar@hotmail.com