[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2005, at 20:29, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> Mandatory DTD can be up for discussion given how it's been used in the
>> past for quirks mode detection and the such, but for sure if there's
>> any way to do without it, I sure won't mind.
>
> Of course, the doctype sniffing argument is and should be totally moot
> when it comes to XHTML 2.0.
I would tend to agree, the reason I'm doubting is because I don't see
why instead of this ghastly and verbose notion of using the DTD to sniff
the mode they didn't just come up with a "beStrictBaby="true" attribute
on the root element for when you want standard compliance. I'd like
confirmation from someone who was involved in that design that it would
have worked just as well before bringing wrath and fury to the HTML
demanding they remove the plagues of DTDs from us.
> From XHTML 1.x to XHTML 2.0 there is a lot of stuff that remains
> relatively the same when considering the local element names without the
> namespace. Changing the namespace is like running Rot13 on those element
> names. Running Rot13 on element names like that is impractical and
> uncool, because it makes code reuse in UAs more difficult and prevents
> incremental adoption of new features in authoring.
I haven't looked in detail at the recent developments in XHTML 2.0. At
some point it was different enough that I felt a new namespace was
needed but that might have changed. I guess that LC will be the right
moment to figure that out.
> I think taking the good ideas from XHTML 2.0 (to the extent they exist)
> and backporting them to the XHTML 1.x namespace makes much more sense in
> the context of the Web, IMO. That's one of the things that WHAT WG is
> doing with the XHTML flavor of HTML5.
Last time I looked the WHAT WG seemed to be taking the bad ideas from
XHTML 2.0 and updating HTML 4.01 with those, but then again that part
might have changed :)
--
Robin Berjon
Senior Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
|
