RE: ISSUE-4 - versioning/DOCTYPEs

Hi.

 

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

> other considerations.?

 

Larry good point; you know you are asking a somewhat uninformed person with some JavaScript and PASCAL, a tiny tiny bit of PERL (and since the display results at my host have seemed odd and inexplicable in terms of my understanding -- that is incorrect -- I have given up PERL for now), plus very little knowledge of C++

So I don't know if I should reply to your questions about PHP,

but off the top of my head I would say that yes the impact of those mechanisms and of browser design and everything else should be considered,

but at the same time the W3C cannot specify PHP.

Maybe however I do not understand your question.

Thanks very much for asking it anyway.

Best,

 

C. E. Whitehead

cewcathar@hotmail.com
 


From: LMM@acm.org
To: cewcathar@hotmail.com
CC: xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no; www-archive@w3.org
Subject: RE: ISSUE-4 - versioning/DOCTYPEs
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 11:39:45 -0700





(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