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

Matthew Raymond mattraymond at earthlink.net
Fri Jul 9 08:15:38 PDT 2004

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 recall no such statements being made by WHAT WG members on this 
mailing list, and nothing in the Web Forms 2.0 draft to support such a 
conclusion. In fact, there are probably hundreds of instances of the 
term "XHTML" in the WF2 draft.

>>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.

    This is in direct contradiction with Ian Hickson's statements on the 
same issue.

More information about the whatwg mailing list