Comments on: <!doctype html> http://ajaxian.com/archives/doctype-html Cleaning up the web with Ajax Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:20:04 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: mrclay http://ajaxian.com/archives/doctype-html/comment-page-1#comment-269979 mrclay Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:50:50 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=5248#comment-269979 I'd love to... Someone want to tell WordPress to switch to HTML? I’d love to… Someone want to tell WordPress to switch to HTML?

]]> By: zachleat http://ajaxian.com/archives/doctype-html/comment-page-1#comment-269488 zachleat Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:45:31 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=5248#comment-269488 Ha. While Google's search results do use this method, they also don't even have an opening HTML tag. I guess they have the testing resources to ignore standards based development, do you? Here's to hoping that no tags are ever deprecated or removed! Ha. While Google’s search results do use this method, they also don’t even have an opening HTML tag. I guess they have the testing resources to ignore standards based development, do you?

Here’s to hoping that no tags are ever deprecated or removed!

]]> By: WillPeavy http://ajaxian.com/archives/doctype-html/comment-page-1#comment-269445 WillPeavy Sat, 29 Nov 2008 01:34:02 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=5248#comment-269445 Nobody knows what the web will be like when people are using HTML 7 or 8. What if developers 20+ years from now would benefit from altering the properties of elements and attributes that go into HTML 5? If versioning is omitted, future developers would be locked into today's view of how the web should work. Nobody knows what the web will be like when people are using HTML 7 or 8. What if developers 20+ years from now would benefit from altering the properties of elements and attributes that go into HTML 5? If versioning is omitted, future developers would be locked into today’s view of how the web should work.

]]> By: ded http://ajaxian.com/archives/doctype-html/comment-page-1#comment-269436 ded Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:03:28 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=5248#comment-269436 Thanks for posting this Dion. I wanted to also make this clear as someone pointed out on my blog, is that John Resig <a href="http://ejohn.org/blog/html5-doctype/" rel="nofollow">pointed this out</a> near the beginning of this year and goes even further in explaining the details, and in reality, this is a good idea. Even so, it's been working for Google for the last couple of years. Thanks for posting this Dion. I wanted to also make this clear as someone pointed out on my blog, is that John Resig pointed this out near the beginning of this year and goes even further in explaining the details, and in reality, this is a good idea.

Even so, it’s been working for Google for the last couple of years.

]]> By: Nosredna http://ajaxian.com/archives/doctype-html/comment-page-1#comment-269435 Nosredna Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:32:34 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=5248#comment-269435 I like it. If it's good enough for Google pages, it's good enough for me. I like it. If it’s good enough for Google pages, it’s good enough for me.

]]> By: ywg http://ajaxian.com/archives/doctype-html/comment-page-1#comment-269434 ywg Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:13:00 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=5248#comment-269434 @tbroyer . Then how can you validate a document if you don't know which subset you've got to test against ? . If tomorrow HTML 6 got the 'object' tag de precated, and you can't tell from the doctype which subset the author intended to use... Does these mean all prior document become unvalid ? @tbroyer
.
Then how can you validate a document if you don’t know which subset you’ve got to test against ?
.
If tomorrow HTML 6 got the ‘object’ tag de precated, and you can’t tell from the doctype which subset the author intended to use… Does these mean all prior document become unvalid ?

]]> By: iliad http://ajaxian.com/archives/doctype-html/comment-page-1#comment-269433 iliad Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:09:31 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=5248#comment-269433 Hmmm, this looks interesting... I'm gonna try it next time... hope the universe doesn't collapse on itself :) Hmmm, this looks interesting… I’m gonna try it next time… hope the universe doesn’t collapse on itself :)

]]> By: smith http://ajaxian.com/archives/doctype-html/comment-page-1#comment-269431 smith Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:22:17 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=5248#comment-269431 As of very recently http://validator.w3.org/ now (experimentally) checks HTML 5. That means it works from the Firefox Web Developer Toolbar as well. As of very recently http://validator.w3.org/ now (experimentally) checks HTML 5. That means it works from the Firefox Web Developer Toolbar as well.

]]> By: aheckmann http://ajaxian.com/archives/doctype-html/comment-page-1#comment-269430 aheckmann Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:09:08 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=5248#comment-269430 maybe i should read the article before posting the obvious... maybe i should read the article before posting the obvious…

]]> By: aheckmann http://ajaxian.com/archives/doctype-html/comment-page-1#comment-269429 aheckmann Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:05:03 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=5248#comment-269429 This is what google has been using in their search results for a while now. This is what google has been using in their search results for a while now.

]]> By: tbroyer http://ajaxian.com/archives/doctype-html/comment-page-1#comment-269428 tbroyer Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:27:17 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=5248#comment-269428 The whole point of HTML5 is provide a "web compatible" platform. This means a document published now should show OK in 10 years from now, and an HTML5-compliant browser will be able to open HTML6, HTML7, etc. web pages. What it also means is that a valid HTML5 page will be valid HTML6, valid HTML7, etc. People don't care whether their page is valid HTML 2.0, what they care is that it's "valid HTML" (at the time they publish it and at any later point in time) and that it "just works" in browsers. Having a version number in the web page encourages browsers to do doctype-sniffing. See also http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ for more about doctype sniffing. The whole point of HTML5 is provide a “web compatible” platform. This means a document published now should show OK in 10 years from now, and an HTML5-compliant browser will be able to open HTML6, HTML7, etc. web pages.
What it also means is that a valid HTML5 page will be valid HTML6, valid HTML7, etc.
People don’t care whether their page is valid HTML 2.0, what they care is that it’s “valid HTML” (at the time they publish it and at any later point in time) and that it “just works” in browsers.
Having a version number in the web page encourages browsers to do doctype-sniffing.

See also http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ for more about doctype sniffing.

]]> By: vsync http://ajaxian.com/archives/doctype-html/comment-page-1#comment-269427 vsync Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:57:58 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=5248#comment-269427 I'm too afraid to try it out :) I’m too afraid to try it out :)

]]> By: TNO http://ajaxian.com/archives/doctype-html/comment-page-1#comment-269426 TNO Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:56:38 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=5248#comment-269426 Once we ween ourselves away from quirksmode supporting browsers we could drop the doctype completely and rely on server defined content type and/or a meta tag I'm sure Once we ween ourselves away from quirksmode supporting browsers we could drop the doctype completely and rely on server defined content type and/or a meta tag I’m sure

]]> By: hellweaver666 http://ajaxian.com/archives/doctype-html/comment-page-1#comment-269425 hellweaver666 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:19:19 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=5248#comment-269425 Damn, forgot to code it up... I meant: <code></code> Damn, forgot to code it up… I meant:

]]> By: hellweaver666 http://ajaxian.com/archives/doctype-html/comment-page-1#comment-269424 hellweaver666 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:18:37 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=5248#comment-269424 I think if it had the version number it may be better... i.e. Surely browsers can just store the location of the most popular and common doctypes and treat that like some kind of shortcut? It would certainly save us the hassle of sticking the really long one in? I think if it had the version number it may be better… i.e.

Surely browsers can just store the location of the most popular and common doctypes and treat that like some kind of shortcut? It would certainly save us the hassle of sticking the really long one in?

]]> By: Phunky http://ajaxian.com/archives/doctype-html/comment-page-1#comment-269423 Phunky Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:49:02 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=5248#comment-269423 It does make sense in a way, although it does kinda feel wrong - not sure why, just feels wrong :S It does make sense in a way, although it does kinda feel wrong – not sure why, just feels wrong :S

]]> By: ywg http://ajaxian.com/archives/doctype-html/comment-page-1#comment-269422 ywg Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:28:17 +0000 http://ajaxian.com/?p=5248#comment-269422 Am I the only one to think that a Doctype who fails to clearly specify the type of the document is a very bad idea ? . I understand the need of simplification, but you should at least specify which html version you use. . Am I the only one to think that a Doctype who fails to clearly specify the type of the document is a very bad idea ?
.
I understand the need of simplification, but you should at least specify which html version you use.
.

]]>