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 09:28:55 -0500
Message-Id: <4DE1D096-6764-4CCA-8E2D-2E1426CF3F8D@robburns.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
To: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>

Hi Geoffrey,

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…

If we were discussing adding NETs to the "classic HTML" serialization  
wouldn't you be telling us that we can't do that because there's not  
a single HTML UA on the planet that supports them?

Take care,
Received on Saturday, 7 July 2007 14:29:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:24 UTC