- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:50:54 +0100
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Lachlan Hunt 2009-01-26 13.09: > Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> So, to continue an earlier idea of mine [1], how about >> >> <!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "about:dtd-compat"> >> >> Such a DTD would be easy to explain - e.g in Wikipedia, which allready >> has an article about DOCTYPES, including the "DTD-less" HTML 5 doctype >> [2]. > > Using any string containing "dtd" is potentially misleading because it > could suggest the availability of a DTD. It seems to me that all variants of "someFormat-compat" are potentially misleading, so one must eventually select the least confusing format. The draft says that HTML 5 is not related to SGML. So why mention SGML in the DOCTYPE? Confusing! If one is able to fantasize that "dtd-compat" means there is a DTD, then one would also be able to think that "sgml-compat" make the HTML sgml compatible. > The exception would be > something like "about:no-dtd" which makes it clear there isn't one, but > that doesn't make it clear that this DOCTYPE is meant for compatibility > purposes. Inspired from how Wikipedia puts it, on could say "about:dtd-less". However, then one could be lead to think that there would be an dtd *unless* on added that string ... And that would be fine, as long as one only has the <DOCTYPE html SYSTEM ... > variant in mind. Other alternatives: "about:blank-dtd" (AKA "an empty DTD" ...) Or perhaps simply "about:blank"? What better way to demonstrate the lack of purpose? -- leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 13:51:36 UTC