W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > February 2011


From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:27:53 -0800 (PST)
To: public-html-xml@w3.org
Message-ID: <2042246231.255503.1297351673736.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:13:53 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
> wrote:
> > But I can't make my mind up. WDYT?
> EXI seems like just another syntax to get a DOM. XHTML and HTML
> already
> pretty much generate the same DOM so if EXI is compatible with either
> this
> should already work, no?

Yeah. All you need to define is how things that depend on the HTMLness bit work. The natural way to decide which way to set the bit is to set unset it (mark the document as XML) making innerHTML behave as in XML and disabling document.write().

Beyond saying which way the HTMLness bit goes, I think there's nothing more to spec here.

But given how little usage the XML serialization has seen, though, I think it would be prudent for implementors not to hurry with EXI support.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2011 15:28:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:27 UTC