- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:32:45 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Three points: 1) As Julian says, DOCTYPE is not the only issue; 2) Ian Hickson's response appears to me to confuse two separate issues -- we're not contesting that the HTML 5 spec can define conformance as it currently does -- previous HTML specs have eliminated features and ruled old documents non-conforming to the new spec. What's at issue is whether or not such documents can be labelled 'text/html'. Equating the class of "can be served as text/html" with the class "conforms to this spec." is what we are objecting to -- that's _not_ something previous HTML specs have done. 3) The new text in 7.2.5.4 The "initial" insertion mode is indeed a long way from the more restrictive approach taken in previous drafts. Whether attempting to enumerate all possible historically used system and public ids is a good idea is unclear to me, but as it stands I think the section is buggy, in at least four respects: a) The optionality bits in the first bulleted list of 4 cases are not what I expect: for the XHTML cases the public identifier should be optional -- e.g. <!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> is perfectly well-formed XML/XHTML and is widely used; b) Similarly for the HTML 4 and preceding cases -- the PUBLIC identifier is optional, so e.g. <!DOCTYPE HTML SYSTEM "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd"> can begin a conformant HTML 4.0 document. c) In the second (quirks-related) bulleted list, why are the transitional and frameset XHTML alternatives not allowed, e.g. "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" ? d) How does control ever get to that list in any case? The first paragraph says if none of the first four bullets apply, we have a 'parse error'. . . I realise this is a very basic spec. reading issue, but I can't actually tell from the definition of 'parse error' [1] what happens next. Where is the 'below' referred to by: "The error handling for parse errors is well-defined: user agents must either act as described below when encountering such problems. . ." ? And, finally, is a document with a 'parse error' a conformant _document_? All of this section is about agent behaviour, whereas the original point was about whether or not e.g. <!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html><body><p>Hello world.</p></body></html> is an 'HTML document' as defined by the spec. ht [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#parse-error - -- Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFLaBttkjnJixAXWBoRAu1fAJkBbXMXeE/4GyLXCmBVnrcBJf7hOQCdEtYn 9Tzos3QpmegQnc9CqoD/fAs= =aYPW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 12:33:25 UTC