-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 535
Make HTML4/XHTML1 Strict doctypes non-conforming #729
Comments
@cstrobbe can you explain why you disagree please? It makes sense to me that HTML 5.x doesn't include doctype markers that are specifically intended to identify documents as some other, but related, language. |
For the validator - and the spec - I would like to propose the opposite direction: Rather than tightening the screw on what validates, any DOCTYPE that triggers no-quirks mode should get status as "obsolete but conforming". And, as well: if there is a problem in the validator, it should be solved in the validator. There are several options for how to do that without changing the spec. The HTML5 validator does not need to accept the obsolete but conforming features by default. The message of having the obsolete but conforming doctypes is (1) that the DOCTYPE does not matter and (2) that only no-quirks mode matters and (3) keeping them obsolete - but conforming, shows that HTML does not include versioning signals. Further, the DTDs of the legacy DOCYPEs add some (XML) features that are seemingly not widely available in XML authoring tools unless one reference a DTD: They declare named character references and they declare the id attribute to have ID-ness (though, ID-ness is not declared for the new elements of HTML 5.x.) Bringing in HTML 3.2 is counterproductive because that DOCTYPE triggers quirks mode. As for making any no-quirks DOCTYPE obsolete but conforming, this would solve problems I have when need to work with certain common XML tools. Then, I find myself needing to declare ID-ness, and the only cross-tool way I could do that was by inserting a data URL in the SYSTEM variant of the HTML 5 doctype. For example, this example declare ID-ness for the article element - without triggering quirksmode:
Note that it would be OK to treat this a obsolete (but conforming) because it ought not be necessary to do it this way, but unfortunately it is. |
@komputist it doesn't seem like what you are writing is HTML 5.2 anyway, but something else related. If the doctype you use suits your purpose, allowing the specific HTML 4 / XHTML 1.1 doctypes in HTML 5.2 makes no difference I can see. What am I missing? |
Over on WHATWG @sideshowbarker wrote:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: