- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:06:54 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > If you mean: Is it worth going down the road of requiring getElementById > to support arbitrary characters in ids? > > Perhaps not. Depends on what is implemented. I expect the spec to (when I get to gEBI) say that all characters must be supported. It's easier to implement, for one. > If you mean: Is it worth going down the road of requiring getElementById > to consider idness based on factors other that the ID type in a DTD? > > Definitely yes. Browsers don't process DTDs and the W3C already allows > the DOM impl to use info other than the DTD to figure out which > attributes count as ids. Yeah, that's already water long under the bridge. On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > I don't think SGML validation is part of What WG conformance > requirements. I thought Hixie has specifically said he doesn't bother > with DTDs. Indeed. WHATWG will happily host schemas and DTDs if people write them (see, e.g., syntax.whatwg.org; fantasai maintains that). However, none of them will be given any sort of preferential status. They're just implementations. On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > I am very hostile towards the idea of requiring UAs to implement any XML > parsing features that are in the realm of the XML 1.0 spec but that the > XML 1.0 spec does not require. This means processing the DTD beyond > checking the internal subset for well-formedness. > > I would rather suggest that What WG specs explicitly discourage people > from using a doctype on the XHTML side and point out that authors should > not expect UAs to process the DTD. > > Those who want to use entities for input, should parse and reserialize > as UTF-8 in their own lair and not expose their entity references (or > parochial legacy encodings) to the public network. The spec has text to this effect in places now; let me know if you have more specific text you'd like to see. I don't want to be too strong, since if you're using XML, exactly how you do so is the problem of the XML spec, not the Web Apps / XHTML5 spec. On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > Ideally, UAs would know nothing of that particular doctype and would > trigger the standards mode because there is a doctype that is not on the > list of doctypes that triggers the quirks mode or the almost standards > mode. Currently the spec says you trigger quirks mode if there isn't a <!DOCTYPE HTML>, and you feel like it (both conditions must be met). I may make this more specific in due course; do people think we should? I'm also tempted to just codify many parts of quirks mode; do people want to do that instead? > > Or at the very least use something that would not confuse people into > > thinking that it is an application of SGML or XML. > > Do you want to replace "NONSGML" with "THIS-IS-NOT-SGML"? Well, we're now down to just <!DOCTYPE HTML>, since that was the shortest I could make it while still triggering strict mode (well, <!DOCTYPEHTML> worked too, but that just looks silly). Suggestions on shortening it are welcome. I really wish we could ditch the DOCTYPE altogether. The number of pages that use quirks mode is just sad. On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Apr 8, 2005, at 11:05, Jim Ley wrote: > > > The proposed string that MUST appear as the first line of a WHAT-WG > > document is... please do not call it a doctype unless it is a doctype, > > see even people on the list are confused by using this! > > Well, it could be defined as a tag soup construct called "doctype", > which is neither an SGML doctype nor an XML doctype. :-) Indeed, it's a DOCTYPE token, and it generates (in the right place) a DOCTYPE DOM node. It's not an XML or SGML DOCTYPE per se... -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 24 February 2006 15:06:54 UTC