[whatwg] DOCTYPE shouldn't be optional (fwd)

Fri Jul 9 06:39:41 PDT 2004

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Malcolm Rowe wrote:
>
> Erk, yes, good point. We should still note somewhere that WF2 documents
> *can't* be 'strictly conforming', according to the definitions in the
> XHTML1.0/1.1 specs.
>
> How about:
> 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..

Ok, merging everything everyone proposed, the spec now says:

HTML documents that use the new features described in this specification
and that are served over HTTP must be sent as text/html and must use the
following DOCTYPE: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//WHATWG//NONSGML HTML5//EN">.

XML documents using elements from the XHTML namespace that use the new
features described in this specification and that are served over HTTP
must be sent using an XML MIME type such as application/xml or
application/xhtml+xml and must not be served as text/html. [RFC3023]

These XML documents may contain a DOCTYPE if desired, but this is not
required.

Note: Documents that use the new features described in this specification
cannot be strictly conforming XHTML or HTML4 documents, since they contain
features not defined in those specifications.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'