- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:56:56 +0300
- To: "www-validator@w3.org" <www-validator@w3.org>
- CC: Kristjan <kristjanile@gmail.com>
17.10.2011 13:47, LEIƒ Ⱨ SIỺI wrote: > Jukka K. Korpela, Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:03:16 +0300: >> 16.10.2011 22:46, Kristjan wrote: >> >>> Im using HTML5 doctype >> >> There is no HTML5 document type definition, and the <!doctype html> >> declaration recommended in HTML5 drafts is there just to make >> browsers go to standards (and not quirks) mode and to inform >> interested software about the intent of using HTML in the HTML5 way. > > There is a HTML doctype - a "DT":<!DOCTYPE html>. > But there is no HTML5 "DTD". > So the HTML5 doctype declaration is a DTD-less doctype. Indeed. That’s why I wrote as I did, instead of saying “There is no HTML5 doctype,” as I originally meant to. :-) Technically the string “<!DOCTYPE html>” is called “a DOCTYPE” in the HTML5 drafts, thus avoiding an expression like “doctype declaration”—since in HTML5, the DOCTYPE is just a magic string and does not really declare anything (at least not anything comparable to what SGML and XML document type declarations do). >>> I assume long and shorthand versions should all work. > > I think they do work. But that the HTML5 editor ruled that there is no > practical use for 2 names for the same attribute. I was under the impression that this was made in order to avoid problems in legacy browsers that might only support the values defined in HTML 4. But I was unable to find evidence of such problems, so it seems that it was just a canonicalization operation, as you describe. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Monday, 17 October 2011 10:57:40 UTC