...@google.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 6:52 PM
> To: shindig-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: HTML doctype declaration for content
>
> I seem to recall that the decision we made a while back was:
> * if no doctype specified, let default reign (quirks, equivalent to
> writin
Mark Pilgrm wrote on this today in his usual engaging style:
http://diveintohtml5.org/semantics.html
he points to Henri Sivionen's detailed summary of browser behaviour:
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/
which delineates Quirks, Standards and 'Almost standards' mode - I think it
is the latter tha
the other
threads of discussion.
-Original Message-
From: John Hjelmstad [mailto:fa...@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 6:52 PM
To: shindig-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: HTML doctype declaration for content
I seem to recall that the decision we made a while back was
No thats about the size of it. There are too many quirks dependent gadgets
already out there that even defaulting any doctype would break a large
number of gadgets.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:51 PM, John Hjelmstad wrote:
> I seem to recall that the decision we made a while back was:
> * if no doc
I was advocating for the minimal HTML5 (extensively tested) doctype of
by default with the other doctype strings inserted if need be. This is
standards mode in all browsers.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:51 PM, John Hjelmstad wrote:
> I seem to recall that the decision we made a while back was:
>
I seem to recall that the decision we made a while back was:
* if no doctype specified, let default reign (quirks, equivalent to writing
a doctype-free webpage)
* else include doctype
Take that with a grain of salt; it's been a while. Perhaps it's worth
plumbing the archives for the longer discuss
6 matches
Mail list logo
