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