- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 13:10:31 +0300
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, www-style@w3.org
On Jul 24, 2004, at 00:28, Chris Lilley wrote: > On Friday, July 23, 2004, 10:52:37 PM, Henri wrote: > > HS> On Jul 23, 2004, at 22:15, Chris Lilley wrote: > HS> My policy has been to be intentionally silent about old doctypes, > HS> obscure doctypes and homegrown doctypes in order to discourage > people > HS> from using them. > > Well, that is fair enough; but for XHTML its certainly appropriate to > use a different one, I document the mode behavior with Appendix C-compatible doctypes, but I don't suggest they be used due to reasons given in http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml > for example to describe which subset of that modular specification is > used. The specs with modular DTDs don't apply to text/html. Also, the browsers support whatever subset of XHTML they happen to support. A doctype does not change that. > HS> I seriously recommend using only either > HS> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" > HS> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> > > Which gives standards mode in some browsers and quirks mode in others. > Which is a pity. It does not give the quirks mode in any non-beta browser that does doctype sniffing and that I am aware of. The early Safari betas have (for practical purposes) been replaced with newer versions. >>> Results from more browsers, if available, would be good there >>> too. I am thinking particularly of Safari, > > HS> Already covered in the same column as contemporary Mozilla. > > Thanks (although that was not clear when I posted my question) The column header is too crowded. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://iki.fi/hsivonen/
Received on Sunday, 25 July 2004 06:10:47 UTC