- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 23:52:37 +0300
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, www-style@w3.org
On Jul 23, 2004, at 22:15, Chris Lilley wrote: > BZ> What behavior do other browsers have with regard to unknown > doctypes? > > BZ> This would be a good thing to add to that quirks/standards chart > that was cited > BZ> earlier in the thread. > > It would. My policy has been to be intentionally silent about old doctypes, obscure doctypes and homegrown doctypes in order to discourage people from using them. I seriously recommend using only either <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> or <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> for new content served as text/html. This recommendation of mine has been stable and appropriate for four years despite refinements to doctype sniffing and more browsers adopting the practice. I see no good reason to encourage authors to use a wider variety of doctypes for text/html. (At least not until the WHAT WG work exits the draft stage.) (For XML on the Web, including XHTML served as application/xhtml+xml, I advocate doctypelessness and using other means, such as Relax NG, for assessing correct element usage.) > Results from more browsers, if available, would be good there > too. I am thinking particularly of Safari, Already covered in the same column as contemporary Mozilla. > Konqueror, On my todo list. > NetFront and the browser from Openwave. Are these known to do doctype sniffing? -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://iki.fi/hsivonen/
Received on Friday, 23 July 2004 16:52:40 UTC