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

[Jim Ley]

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:34:28 -0400, Matthew Raymond
<mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jim Ley wrote:
> > No, because WF2 is only relevant to legacy clients, and legacy clients
> > mostly only support text/html.
> 
>    I think you're forgetting the WF2 clients that support XHTML. 

No, but even the authors and WHAT WG members don't recommend using it,
and those user agents also support HTML 4.01, so there's no reason to
being serving XHTML WF to them.  The HTML WF will work just the same.

> I believe Mozilla, Opera and Safari all support XHTML, so why would
> employees of these companies define a standard that requires them to
> treat HTML and XHTML differently?

Because they already have to be and are being treated differently.

Jim.