- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:48:46 -0500
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF218893D3.02289C1F-ON85257540.004B4A6A-85257540.004BE084@us.ibm.com>
Lachlan Hunt wrote on 01/16/2009 08:08:28 AM: > > Sam Ruby wrote: > > <!DOCTYPE html ""> > > Correction: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC ""> > > > 1) Single DOCTYPE, with a null quoted string > > Considering the fact that both you and DanC [1] mistakenly typed a > non-well-formed version of the DOCTYPE, and that on occasion, even I > have accidentally omitted the PUBLIC keyword while typing the HTML4 > DOCTYPEs, I think this is evidence that it is more prone to errors and > that we should not encourage people to use it at all. I think it is > better to actively discourage its use and this is one reason why the > perjorative alternatives are preferred. Given that attaining consensus on preference on this issue is apparently not attainable, I am looking for answers in the form of "I could not live with...". > Additionally, it's not clear to me which tools besides XSLT have > difficulty outputting <!DOCTYPE html> in HTML serialisations, and thus > what problem we are solving by changing "XSLT-compat" to > "legacy-compat". (If such tools have been mentioned in previous > threads, then I may have missed them) One such tool is mentioned in the bug report[8] cited in my prior email: [8] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6336 - Sam Ruby.
Received on Friday, 16 January 2009 13:49:35 UTC