Since html5 has no dtd, shouldnt the doctype simply be:
<!DOCTYPE html>
?

Comments

Jeff Burnz’s picture

Jeff Burnz commented

If you have RDF module turned off we don't need it, but if you have RDF module on we declare RDFa in the doctype, this is the current recommendation (I have done this under advice from some peeps in the RDFa team) until the RDFa/HTML5 spec is finalized. You will notice this theme does a dynamic doctype switch depending on the status of RDF module.

I would assume that later on we can dispense with the extra fluff in the doctype, but until I know otherwise I'll keep it there for safety.

Jeff Burnz’s picture

Jeff Burnz commented
Status: Active » Postponed

I'll postpone this until the new spec on RDFa+HTML5 is finalised, right now it works but will change in due course.

Anonymous’s picture

Anonymous (not verified) commented

The doctype only needs to be included for validation purposes. The one that is currently in the theme isn't the same as the one in the spec. But the one in the spec is kind of silly looking (using HTML 4.01), and since pages don't seem to validate with it anyway, I would say that the theme could just go with the default HTML 5 doctype.

However, this whole issue should be a lot clearer soon. The leaders of the W3C have asked a task force to come together to talk about microdata and RDFa to figure out what the recommendation for inline structured data will be in HTML 5.

Jeff Burnz’s picture

Jeff Burnz commented
Status: Postponed » Active

Right, that is my thinking also at this stage, to simply go with the default doctype and remove this layer of complicity from the theme (I cringe every time I look at this code).

Jeff Burnz’s picture

Jeff Burnz commented
Version: 7.x-1.x-dev » 7.x-2.x-dev

fixed but needs backport to 7.x-1.x

Jeff Burnz’s picture

Jeff Burnz commented
Version: 7.x-2.x-dev » 7.x-3.x-dev
Component: Code » CSS/HTML
Status: Active » Closed (fixed)