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

Re: Why HTML should be taught as HTML without pretending it is XML

From: Jon Barnett <jonbarnett@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:16:28 -0500
Message-ID: <bde87dd20707231216l1537b014r82ca674f2ab2ae8f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Robert Burns" <rob@robburns.com>
Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>

On 7/23/07, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com> wrote:
> Hi Jon,

> > - Never intend to switch to serving the document as
> > application/xhtml+xml, or have the document parsed as XML, without
> > mowing through a long list of caveats not covered by Appendix C
> No, These authors jumped on the band-wagon because they're excited
> about the possibilities of XTHML and XML They want to switch some
> day. However, it is not their main motivation to simply avoid running
> HTMLTidy on their content. That's what makes it an even stronger
> cowpath: it's an indication of author's excitement about XML and
> XHTML and not an indication that authors are stupid (as others seem
> to imply).
> > - ... and do all of these things solely because they prefer the
> > syntax? (This is the important point, because I believe that's the
> > crux of your premise)
> No, not solely. It's the syntax, it's the excitement about the
> promise of XML and XHTML, it's the assuredness that once
> implementations are ready it will be a small step to changeover, etc.
> > By observing the cowpath, that's not what I see.
> You just see some poor misguided saps? You haven't shown anything
> wrong with using this appendix C syntax. Yet you think anyone using
> it is doing something wrong. What are they doing wrong?

I'm at a loss.  You, others, and I have pointed out countless concrete
examples of the incompatibilities of converting XML-like HTML to real
XML-parsed-as-XML.  It's more than a "small step to changeover".
We've pointed out countless examples that would surprise authors
making such a changeover.  Examples include, but are not limited to
DOM methods (non-NS-aware methods, like createElement), the DOM tree
(the <tbody> element that was but is no more), CSS selectors affected
by the DOM tree, etc.

What exactly are you rooting for?  Are you wanting a section of the
spec to recommend an authoring style?  A section like The Appendix C
to explain the differences try to show how to write XML to be served
as HTML?  The spec itself to actually REQUIRE a certain syntax?
Received on Monday, 23 July 2007 19:16:32 UTC

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