Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!uucp.gnuu.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <2573646.tVgHbsfKGD@PointedEars.de> From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 20:06:41 +0100 User-Agent: KNode/4.10.5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&. <6e3n89hek6ao71bgv0cb8p2f6c4q306oqr@4ax.com> <8lqs89h9dmomvtni0p8kaaumfn6b85me6s@4ax.com> <953v89ljd1s7c6kj54mu7fr1c4dsft6acb@4ax.com> Followup-To: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.misc MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 101 NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Nov 2013 20:06:43 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 456ed433.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=H^56> John Harris writes: >> Eric Bednarz wrote: >>> John Harris writes: >>>> The legacy DOCTYPEs, by which I assume you mean SGML-like document >>>> type declarations, say that the document is one of HTML 1 to 4.01. >>> I don't know what you know about SGML, but I remember that you know >>> OOP. Please write this 500.000 times: >>> SGML document type declarations have no "is a" semantics. >> >> The HTML 4.01 standard > > If you are interested, I have a bridge for sale. HTML 4.01 was published by the W3C after it took over HTML development from the IETF/IESG [RFC2854]. The W3C works like an international standardization organization. [W3CAbout] W3C Recommendations are called by them (ibid.) and considered by many people “Web standards”: pp. >> says : >> "A valid HTML document declares what version of HTML is used in the >> document. The document type declaration names the document type >> definition (DTD) in use for the document (see [ISO8879])." > > Yes, please, by all means, and let me emphasize that a bit, go > ***SEE [ISO8879]***. It's a bloody normative reference, after all. And the HTML 4.01 Specification, which had only achieved Recommendation status in 1999 because it was formally approved by the W3C Director and Membership [W3CProc], is not? >> Sounds pretty "is_a" to me. > > I think the fact that you have to borrow arguments from other people in order to have an argument *at all* is indication that you have not thought this through. The argument made there is flawed in the first place because a *declaration* is exactly that: a means to say (*declare*) “this is (supposed to be) a $SOMETHING”. A *DOCTYPE* declaration says/declares “this is (supposed to be) a $SOMETHING *document*”, a *document* of a certain *type*. The syntactical restrictions thus enforced (and not enforced) implicitly define the semantics (meaning) of the $SOMETHING; what the $SOMETHING *is*, what it *means*. Hence DOCTYPE (Document *Type*) Declaration. A type is a classification, a means to ascribe common properties to different objects. The argument made there does not apply to HTML in particular because Valid HTML, at least in version 4.01, *excludes* the SGML feature (internal subset) that could put into doubt the intended type of a document. See also: (contains the full text partially quoted above) etc. This shows that a DOCTYPE declaration is in practice, at least for Web documents, much more than just a hint or relevant to syntax. If the declaration and the content does not match, you are asking for trouble. Compare: > (Finding *anything* in Google Groups is an achievement well worth the > George Cross, you owe me a drink.) ACK. __________ [W3CAbout] World Wide Web Consortium (2012). “About W3C”. [W3CProc] World Wide Web Consortium (2005-10-14). “World Wide Web Consortium Process Document”. “7.4.5 Publication of a W3C Recommendation”. [RFC2854] D. Connolly and L. Masinter (2000-06). “The 'text/html' Media Type”. RFC 2854 (INFORMATIONAL). The Internet Society. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.