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

Re: html5 syntax - why not use xml syntax?

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 09:01:25 -0500
Message-Id: <ED50D851-23B9-491E-8758-F4738EA996D7@robburns.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
To: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>


On Jul 7, 2007, at 8:40 AM, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2007, at 13:33, Robert Burns wrote:
>
>> I hadn't followed the link when I replied earlier. That article is  
>> one of those articles I was talking about, that contribute to the  
>> confusion (xhtml syntax wants to kill you and everyone you care  
>> about! hear the details at 11!). The mistake is thinking that HTML  
>> is SGML the / solidus (/) can potentially serve as an element  
>> terminus in SGML, if the DTD allows for it. However, HTML UAs do  
>> not follow SGML strictly. If they did, the solidus termination  
>> would still depend on the HTML DTD: including a potential HTML5  
>> DTD, if we changed gears and went with an SGML serialization.  
>> There's no reason our DTD couldn't ensure the solidus was not  
>> treated as a element terminator if we went that route.
>
> The question asked was whether it is currently possible to put  
> XHTML syntax in a valid HTML document (to which the answer is no,  
> as it'll be invalid due to NETs). Whether HTML5 uses SGML or not  
> (if it does it has really lost relevancy with the real world) is  
> irrelevant as to whether it is allowed under the current standards.  
> There's nothing in the spec that preludes someone from creating an  
> SGML serialisation of HTML 5, though…

That's not the question that I understood was being asked. I  
understood this discussion to be about whether we could make the  
HTML5 'classic HTML' serialization a very xml-like serialization  
without breaking backwards compatibility. And I understood "backwards  
compatibility" to mean compatibility with existing UAs. in actual use  
by web users. To that question the answer, I think, is yes.

NETs would have no effect on our HTML5 serialization because our  
charter the Group will not assume that an SGML parser is used for  
'classic HTML'. Therefore we need not worry about NETs except if it  
would break an existing non-HTML5 UA. Conformance checker's should  
not be included because we will need HTML5 specific conformance  
checkers built from our candidate recommendation.

Take care,
Rob
Received on Saturday, 7 July 2007 14:01:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:46 UTC