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

Re: Use cases

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 16:36:17 -0500
To: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html-xml@w3.org
Message-ID: <20110104213617.GA4834@mercury.ccil.org>
Kurt Cagle scripsit:

> At this point only a very small fraction of the HTML out there (maybe
> 0.01 percent) is HTML5, and most of that is in the use of <video> and
> <audio> tags. HTML5 is not HTML4, though it is obviously backwards
> compatible. While it is sometimes convenient to use the weight of
> existing HTML in these arguments, the reality is that HTML5 is still
> an ongoing work in progress, subject to change.

I think the question is not "What is (valid) HTML4 or HTML5?"  Rather,
the question is "What is processable by the HTML5 parsing algorithm?" and
the answer is "Pretty much every HTML document, though not XML documents
(or GIF documents, for that matter)."  Some HTML5 content contains
HTML5-specific tags and is therefore not HTML4, but HTML4 parsers will
handle it properly even if HTML4 applications such as browsers don't
have appropriate behavior for it.

> If the former dominates (and will continue to dominate), then I think
> that the argument of HTML5 as a language distinct from XML makes sense.

What dominates and will continue to dominate for many years is the vast
bulk of legacy tag soup.  As long as that exists (and the menu for
Milliways may be written in tag soup, for all we know), HTML will be
distinct from XML.

-- 
Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.
        --Arthur C. Clarke, "The Nine Billion Names of God"
                John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Received on Tuesday, 4 January 2011 21:36:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 January 2011 21:37:26 GMT