• To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Subject: Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@i...>
• Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 01:50:03 +0300
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <42FC7ACD.6050605@e...>
• References: <1123780181.3496.27.camel@marge> <42FB8AF9.9080600@e...> <937259024a0c450a65b9a613a3d699d9@i...> <42FC7ACD.6050605@e...>

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@i...
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
    • From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• Next by Date: Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• Previous by thread: Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• Next by thread: Re: Talking of HTML.... Anyone like lock-in?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread