- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:22:39 +0200
- To: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: > > On 20 Aug 2007, at 19:45, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> >> Lachlan Hunt wrote: >>> ... >>> Many authors have adopted the XHTML syntax for empty elements and the >>> practice of including the trailing slash is now quite common. In >>> order to assist with the transition from XHTML 1.0 to HTML5 in the >>> future, the trailing slash has been permitted because it is harmless >>> and forbidding it would require many authors to make many changes >>> that have no practical benefit. >>> ... >> >> Why would anybody who is using XHTML 1.0 right now (served as XML!), >> want to transition to HTML5 in the future, instead of XHTML5 (or >> whatever it will be called?). > > Many people serve XHTML 1.0 as text/html, as you are allowed to do. > XHTML5 does not allow this. I don't think what those who use XHTML 1.0 > as application/xhtml+xml do is overly relevant, as they are in the vast > minority. That may all be true, but I think talking about it like that is going to cause unneeded confusion. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 20 August 2007 19:23:00 UTC