[whatwg] DOCTYPE shouldn't be optional (fwd)
ian at hixie.ch
Thu Jul 15 07:00:36 PDT 2004
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
>> 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.
I have no clue what you are trying to say here.
> > 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?
If these two questions are related, I've missed the link, sorry.
> Meaning what?
It means that the document is non-conformant. That the author has written
markup that is incorrect. I would have thought you were familiar with the
> What are the conformance requirements on a WF2 viewer?
These are spelled out in detail in the WF2 spec, I don't think I can
easily summarise them here.
>> For people who want to use XHTML, as I do on, e.g.:
> I don't really see the use case in WF2 terms.
If you don't care about IE, and like the strictness of well-formedness
checking, then using XML is the way to go. If you are using XML, then WF2
and WA1 would be quite useful, in conjunction with XHTML, for writing Web
pages. What else would you use?
>> ...or as Tom Pike does, e.g., on:
>> ...or as Allan Clements does, e.g., on:
> 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...
I have passed your comment on to the site administrators.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg