[whatwg] DOCTYPE shouldn't be optional (fwd)
malcolm-what at farside.org.uk
Wed Jul 7 10:27:32 PDT 2004
Forwarding to the list, at Will's request:
----------Forwarded message ----------
From: "Malcolm Rowe" <malcolm-what at farside.org.uk>
To: Will Levine <wlevine at gmail.com>
Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian at hixie.ch>
Will Levine writes:
>> These XML documents may contain a DOCTYPE if desired, but this is not
>> required unless the document is intended to be a 'strictly conforming
>> XHTML document' as defined by the XHTML specification [XHTML1].
> Documents containing WF2 content could never be "strictly conforming
> XHTML documents" because WF2 content is not part of the XHTML spec and
> they wouldn't be able to conform to one of the three XHTML DTDs.
Erk, yes, good point. We should still note somewhere that WF2 documents
*can't* be 'strictly conforming', according to the definitions in the
These XML documents may contain a DOCTYPE if desired, but this is not
required. Note that these XML documents cannot be considered 'strictly
conforming XHTML documents' as defined by the XHTML specification [XHTML1],
as they contain content not defined by the XHTML specification..
or something similar.
[Is there any reason this isn't on-list?]
More information about the whatwg