- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:18:21 +0100
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen 2009-01-16 14.54:
> On Jan 16, 2009, at 14:14, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote on 01/09/2009 04:53:21 AM:
[... the "legacy-compat" problem -...]
>> Second, Chris Wilson has indicated[4] that he is not happy with
>> legacy-compat, and at that point we no longer have consensus.
>>
> I agree with the point Chris made about the ambiguity of what legacy the
> compatibility is about. That is, authors might think that
> "legacy-compat" means compatibility with legacy consumers rather than
> legacy producers.
>
> This is a reason why "XSLT-compat" is better. It's clear that it's there
> for compatibility with a pre-existing W3C spec.
Compatibility with a "pre-existing W3C spec" is a good point. But
isn't it the *old style DOCTYPE syntax* rather than old style
tools we want to support? Focusing on the syntax would give even
users of old style tools a reason for not using the compatibility
DOCTYPE! (Wheras "XSLT-compat" would could lead to "aha, this is
for me".)
Hence, something like this - or similar:
<!DOCTYPE html public "oldstyle">
I think that the use of "oldstyle" rather than "compat" would make
it more unattractive and more difficult to misunderstand.
[ My primary reason for preferring "" over "legacy-compat" or
"XSLT-compat" is that I feel both ar misleading. Hence this
proposal, with a string that I find more meaningful.]
--
leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 16 January 2009 18:19:10 UTC