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

Re: html5 syntax - why not use xml syntax?

From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 21:26:29 +1000
Message-ID: <5f37426b0707070426h537ad348r6066c3e054fcd2a4@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Robert Burns" <rob@robburns.com>
Cc: "Mynthon Gmail" <mynthon1@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
Isn't it possible to have compatible syntax already?
Is there any XHTML syntax that is invalid in a HTML document?

Do any of these cause problems in HTML? Is this valid?
<input type="radio" name="foo" value="bar" checked="checked"/>

What about <?xml prolog, @xmlns, @xml:lang?

I have noticed the W3C HTML validator is confused by <link ... /> and
<meta ... /> empty tags, but had assumed it to be a valiator bug.



On 7/7/07, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 7, 2007, at 3:59 AM, Mynthon Gmail wrote:
> > My idea is to have compatible syntax, but xhtml is xhtml with its
> > own parse and html is html with its own parser. Only syntax is
> > unified.
>
> That does seem like the right thing to do for authoring conformance.
> I have a hard tim thinking of any cons for that. Of course there
> would still be HTML 4.0,1 HTML 4, HTML 3.2, etc. — all handled by the
> same HTML parser — along with HTML5. But its hard for me to think of
> downsides to just requiring of authors a very XML-like syntax for
> HTML5's non-SGML / non-XML serialization. We would still need to deal
> with issues of implied elements (e.g., <colgroup> and <tbody>) and
> perhaps some escaping issues when moving between XML and HTML5
> serializations.
>
> What do other think about this proposal?
>
> Take care,
> Rob
>
Received on Saturday, 7 July 2007 11:26:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:02 GMT