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

Re: HTML/XML Task Force Minutes 18 January 2011

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:22:36 -0500
Message-ID: <4D38D1CC.1000601@intertwingly.net>
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
CC: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-html-xml@w3.org
On 01/20/2011 06:59 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Norman Walsh scripsit:
>
>>     John: At least some of it. As long as XHTML isn't fully accepted, people
>>     will want to generate the text form. I think we know the shape of the
>>     answer, an HTML5 serializer.
>
> s/text form/text\/html form/

I agree with John's modification.

As to Norm's assertion, I would say that if this were a logical proof 
that he left a few steps out.  That's not to say that the conclusion is 
wrong, I just don't know how you get from point A to point B.

But instead of dwelling on this, I'd like to pose a different question: 
which HTML5 serialization?

XML serialization gives you a bit of freedom: you can order attributes 
any way you like, you can use single or double quotes, etc.

HTML5 serialization gives you even more freedom.  You can include 
trailing solidus characters on void elements, you can include talisman 
xlmns attributes in strategic places, you can avoid quoting attributes 
in a number of cases, and even omit a number of elements entirely.

I'll close this by noting that my weblog is simultaneously well-formed 
XML, valid XHTML5, and (when it is served as text/html to user agents 
that don't advertise support for application/xhtml+xml) valid HTML5.

For those who know a bit of python, I suggest perusing html5lib's 
serializers:

http://code.google.com/p/html5lib/source/browse/python/src/html5lib/serializer/

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 21 January 2011 00:23:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 January 2011 00:23:10 GMT