W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2007

Re: supporting both formats html5 & xhtml5 re: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#xhtml5

From: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:27:45 +1300
To: Shawn Medero <soypunk@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <47692A61.5040200@55.co.nz>

Shawn Medero wrote:
> On 12/19/07, Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz> wrote:
>   
>> regarding: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#xhtml5
>>
>>     
>>> For compatibility with existing content and prior specifications, this
>>> specification describes two authoring formats: one based on XML
>>> (referred to as XHTML5), and one using a custom format
>>> <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#parsing> inspired by SGML (referred
>>> to as HTML5). Implementations may support only one of these two
>>> formats, although supporting both is encouraged.
>>>       
>> I don't think that support for XHTML5 should be optional. Specifying
>> that user-agents may support only one format, but supporting both is
>> "encouraged" is insufficient and will only lead to a lack of support for
>> XHTML5 like we had with XHTML1.
>>
>> Can this please be changed to:
>> [[
>>     .....Implementations MUST support these two formats.
>> ]]
>>     
>
> Well that's one side of the issue... what are the others? What are the
> cases where supporting both serializations is an undue burden? Take
> off the desktop browser implementor hat and try on the other HTML 5
> parser hats: mobile device, consumer electronics, embedded desktop
> widget engine and so on.
>   

Well, what are actually suggesting then? What do you think the spec 
should say? I don't see any reason why the spec should specify both 
XHTML and HTML then say to the implementers: "go ahead and choose which 
one you want to support". They both must be supported otherwise the 
(X)HTML5 language(s) cant be used.

> The pros & cons of this (and any future) proposed change are needed
> for the issue tracking volunteers, editors, chairs, and the whole
> working group to make rational choices.
>
> Shawn
>
>   

> What are the
> cases where supporting both serializations is an undue burden?

Have you not heard of "one web" ?
A XHTML5 web page MUST be accessible to all devices, otherwise how can 
it be used?

Do you expect people using XHTML5 to use content-negotiation for ever? 
If so, they will never be able to use the benefits of XHTML5 such as 
embedding SVG into a document.
A person should be able to create a web page in XHTML5 and have it 
supported by *all* user-agents. If not, the whole idea of "one web" gets 
thrown out the window.
You should never have to create two versions of a website; a XHTML5 
version and a HTML5 version, you should only need to create the one 
version and all user-agents should support it.

Opera software doesn't seem to have a problem creating user-agents that 
support both serialisations. And that's on a lot of different devices; 
from desktop browsers to mobile phones.

If there are any genuine reasons why both serialisations can't be 
supported by all user-agents I'd like to hear them.

Dean Edridge
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2007 14:28:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:11 GMT