[html5] Identifying HTML 5 documents? (vs. alternate flavors)

Fri Feb 8 08:59:44 PST 2008

On Feb 8, 2008, at 18:40, Jim Correia wrote:

> On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
>> Considering the current transition at hand, the problem is that  
>> HTML5 obsoletes a lot of frequently used stuff based on principle  
>> rather than based on hard data about harm. So the theory isn't  
>> working now. The theory works with if the language only expands  
>> over time (like CSS has done so far) and only contracts for an  
>> *extremely* good reason.
>
> So it sounds like this is reinforcement for the point that just  
> checking everything as if it were HTML5 is not practical, and may  
> not be so for its successor either.

It isn't too late to change HTML5 to make it practical, though.

>> I'm not quite ready to give up on the theory yet, though. I'd  
>> prefer to make the transition from HTML 4.01 Transitional to HTML5  
>> fit the theory by making HTML5 more permissive and thereby set a  
>> precedent for the HTML5 to HTML6 transition:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jan/0305.html
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0043.html
>
> Agreed - especially about allowing the legacy encoding syntax.

That changed already (except for the requirement to make it the first  
child of <head>).

> For future reference, is this list appropriate for issues like this,  
> or should the discussions be taking place somewhere else?

The W3C HTML WG mailing list (requires non-automated joining  
choreography: http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1173385976&count=1 ) or the  
main WHATWG mailing list (http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org 
) would be more appropriate for suggesting changes to the spec draft.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen at iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/