[RFC|Merged] HTML5 doctype
Re: [RFC] HTML5 doctype
I have not tested it but I believe all of my objections have been addressed.
-
callumacrae
- Former Team Member
- Posts: 1046
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:37 am
- Location: England
- Contact:
Re: [RFC] HTML5 doctype
HTML (all of them) implicitly declares the contents of script tags as CDATA, so the CDATA tags are no longer required:
valid
invalid (the type attribute is no longer required on the script tag, too)
I approve of the change of doctype
~Callum
Code: Select all
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<title>test</title>
</head>
<body>
<script>console.log('</b>');</script>
</body>
</html>
Code: Select all
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" dir="ltr" lang="en-gb" xml:lang="en-gb">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
<title>test</title>
</head>
<body>
<script>console.log('</b>');</script>
</body>
</html>
I approve of the change of doctype
~Callum
Last edited by callumacrae on Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: [RFC] HTML5 doctype
How ridiculous - that's a very poor decision on behalf of the WHATWG. What's was great about HTML was that there weren't many limitations on how it could be used - nobody was forced to use CSS or JavaScript. Theoretically, any styling or scripting language could be used. Now we're seeing "default" languages for HTML5. In future versions, will they deprecate alternative MIME-types for "maximum compatibility"?callumacrae wrote:the type attribute is no longer required on the script tag, too
On a side note, it's a pity that the <object> tag never took off either.
[/end rant]
Of course, I still approve the HTML5 doctype. I just don't approve all of the decisions made in creating HTML5.
$ git commit -m "YOLO"
-
callumacrae
- Former Team Member
- Posts: 1046
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:37 am
- Location: England
- Contact:
Re: [RFC] HTML5 doctype
HTML5 = HTML + JS + CSS3 (or used to be), so I would say that it is perfectly reasonable for <script> to default to JavaScript/a3 wrote:How ridiculous - that's a very poor decision on behalf of the WHATWG. What's was great about HTML was that there weren't many limitations on how it could be used - nobody was forced to use CSS or JavaScript. Theoretically, any styling or scripting language could be used. Now we're seeing "default" languages for HTML5. In future versions, will they deprecate alternative MIME-types for "maximum compatibility"?callumacrae wrote:the type attribute is no longer required on the script tag, too
On a side note, it's a pity that the <object> tag never took off either.
[/end rant]
Of course, I still approve the HTML5 doctype. I just don't approve all of the decisions made in creating HTML5.
Obviously the type attribute can still be specified for inferior languages such as VBScript(?!)
~Callum
Re: [RFC] HTML5 doctype
/a3: Defaults make sense. CSS and JavaScript make sense as defaults for style and script. And no, I don't see the need to adjust all the existing stuff to use these defaults. New code, however, can do so.
In other news, I've set the ticket to fixed, so unless any concerns are raised, it will be merged soonish.
In other news, I've set the ticket to fixed, so unless any concerns are raised, it will be merged soonish.
Re: [RFC] HTML5 doctype
I just encountered a situation in which the declaration of encoding in the document was needed.
I saved a web page in Russian (utf-8 encoded) to disk, and opened the saved copy in firefox. Firefox showed the page in iso-8859-1 encoding. I had to manually switch encoding to utf-8 to read the page.
Considering that the encoding declaration was not hurting anyone I think it should be put back (and not the html5 encoding tag, the old meta content-type that all browsers understand).
I saved a web page in Russian (utf-8 encoded) to disk, and opened the saved copy in firefox. Firefox showed the page in iso-8859-1 encoding. I had to manually switch encoding to utf-8 to read the page.
Considering that the encoding declaration was not hurting anyone I think it should be put back (and not the html5 encoding tag, the old meta content-type that all browsers understand).
Re: [RFC] HTML5 doctype
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#character-encodingI saved a web page in Russian (utf-8 encoded) to disk, and opened the saved copy in firefox. Firefox showed the page in iso-8859-1 encoding. I had to manually switch encoding to utf-8 to read the page.
I think because it was saved to disk, Firefox wouldn't interpret any headers because there aren't any being sent (because it's a file, not over HTTP). So in cases like this, it would seem appropiate to specify the character set in the document.
$ git commit -m "YOLO"
Re: [RFC] HTML5 doctype
Yes, the page obviously rendered fine over http (which is where the encoding was specified).
-
bantu
- 3.0 Release Manager
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:22 am
- Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
- Contact:
Re: [RFC] HTML5 doctype
I agree. It should certainly be possible to save a page to disk.Oleg wrote:Considering that the encoding declaration was not hurting anyone I think it should be put back (and not the html5 encoding tag, the old meta content-type that all browsers understand).