[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 01:50:03 +0300
- Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- In-reply-to: <42FC7ACD.6050605@expway.fr>
- References: <1123780181.3496.27.camel@marge> <42FB8AF9.9080600@expway.fr> <937259024a0c450a65b9a613a3d699d9@iki.fi> <42FC7ACD.6050605@expway.fr>
On Aug 12, 2005, at 13:32, Robin Berjon wrote:
> 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.
For HTML 4, doctype sniffing was devised after the spec was frozen as a
way to read tea leaves.
For XHTML 2.0, there should be no quirks mode. Therefore, it should
always be beStrictBaby="true". No sniffing needed. No doctype needed.
--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
|
