W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > January 2008

Re: HTML5 and XML syntax

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:29:42 +0100
To: temp17@staldal.nu, public-html-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.t5mvbsrjidj3kv@hp-a0a83fcd39d2.belkin>

Disclaimer: This is not an official WG response.

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:24:29 +0100, <temp17@staldal.nu> wrote:

>
> Why is it forbidden to use the XML syntax with text/html?

It's not forbidden. The <html> element is allowed to have  
xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml', and void elements are allowed to  
have a trailing slash.


> Why not have a HTML compatible XML syntax as defined in XHTML 1.0,  
> appendix C?

It is... if you want it to be.


> The HTML5 WD says in section 1.4.1:
>  > The first such concrete syntax is "HTML5". This is the format
>  > recommended for most authors. It is compatible with all legacy Web
>  > browsers. If a document is transmitted with the MIME type text/html,
>  > then it will be processed as an "HTML5" document by Web browsers.
>
> Why is this syntax recommended?

AIUI, because of wider support in UAs, because the syntax is more  
forgiving, and because most authors use it already.


> Why not recommend the XML syntax instead?

Why should it be recommended instead?


> Doesn't most web browsers in use today support the XML syntax?

If you count the user base, most browsers in use today actually don't  
support XHTML.


> After all, the XHTML recommendation has been around for almost 8 years.

Indeed.


> Some web browsers in small devices like mobile phones only supports  
> XHTML.

Which ones? My research suggests the exact opposite: most mobile browsers  
support only HTML, the exception being Opera which supports both HTML and  
XHTML.

    http://simon.html5.org/articles/mobile-results


Cheers,
-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 09:29:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 June 2011 00:13:58 GMT