Rob Crowther wrote:
> On 02/08/12 19:40, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>>
>> Exactly as you meant it in your earlier message :
>>
> I meant it as defined in the HTML5 specification. You're apparently
> disallowing that, so I wanted to know what your definition was.
How things are defined the HTML 5 Draft specification
is relevant only to HTML 5; since we are discussing
documents that specify a DTD in their DOCTYPE directive,
that clearly rules out documents coded to the HTML 5
Draft specification.
> And since, as we've already discussed, browsers aren't using the
> DTDs, then we know they're all parsing everything pre-HTML5
> incorrectly.
No, we don't Rob; that is a non sequitur. Just because a browser
does not implement a full SGML parse does not mean that it automatically
parses everything expressed in an SGML-based DTD correctly : it may
do, it may not, but its behaviour cannot be inferred just on the
basis that it is not using a full SGML parser.
>> To base a specification on what a particular subset of browsers do
>> at some arbitrary point in time is to completely fail to understand
>> the reason for a specification in the first place.
>>
> A specification that no-one ever implements is no use to anyone
> either.
And a "specification" based (as I wrote in my earlier message)
on the current behaviour of a particular subset of browsers
at a particular point in time is not a "specification" at all;
it is simply a rubber-stamping of current practice, good or
bad.
Rob, you and I clearly have different views on this : may
I respectfully suggest that out of respect for the other
members of the list, we cease this debate (at least on
this forum) ?
Philip Taylor
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
