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

[Jim Ley]

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 15:31:35 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> > The MUST here is excessive I think (it prevents me adding my own
> > personal attributes
> 
> Correct. Proprietary attributes must not be sent over the wire.

So even though the property is supported in user agents, I cannot
provide a modified stylesheet that includes WF2 (for example a WF2 and
HTML 4.01 transitional, rather than strict)  I think this is a shame,
just like the WF2 can re-use the semantics of HTML 4.01, other WG's
should be able to re-use the semantics of WF2.

> But if an HTML-based WF2 document is sent as something other than
> text/html, or has another DOCTYPE, then it is non-conformant.

Meaning what?  What are the conformance requirements on a WF2 viewer?

> > An XHTML document would therefore not be able to be served as
> > text/html, can you just clarify that this is deliberately meant to
> > prevent the XHTML as Appendix C carrying on - and XHTML WF documents
> > will be served as text/html would be a violation of the spec.
> 
> Yes, that is exactly correct.

Great!

> For people who want to use XHTML, as I do on, e.g.:

I don't really see the use case in WF2 terms.

> ...or as Tom Pike does, e.g., on:
>   http://www.xiven.com/
> 
> ...or as Allan Clements does, e.g., on:
>   http://www.exploding-planet.com/

Oh great, more people who don't understand q values in Accept-headers,
seen as I can't see these sites to find email addresses, could someone
pass on exactly what q=0 means in an accept header...

Jim.