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

Re: Choosing name for XML serialization (Was: Re: HTML5 differences from HTML4 editor's draft (XHTML5 and XHTML2))

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 17:12:08 -0700
Message-Id: <31EE2B7F-4DD0-4ECD-A003-DA6779DD22E7@apple.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net


On Jun 24, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Mark Birbeck wrote:

>
>> >> "Rich: All existing XHTMLs have been modular, and HTML5 is not.
>> >> It's a mess."
>>
>> This is false, XHTML 1.0 is not modular (in the Modularization  
>> sense).
>
> Yes, Rich was incorrect in the first part of his
> statement--modularisation came about in version 1.1. You don't seem to
> be disputing the second part of his statement though. ;)

It seems like a matter of opinion, so not worth debating.

>> >> "Steven: I believe that XHTML2 is more backwards compatible than
>> >> HTML5, and I plan to make a document comparing them to demonstrate
>> >> it."
>>
>> This seems to indicate either total unfamiliarity with HTML5 or
>> delusion on the part of the speaker.
>
> I saw your other thread where you suggested to a programmer that he
> might be deluding himself if he thought he could possibly understand
> source code from an open source browser.

Quite the contrary, I suggested that he read source code from an open  
source browser to better understand what is or isn't implementable. I  
think this carries the assumption that he could understand it. I  
think looking at implementations is not that hard, and should be done  
regularly to make sure we browser guys are on the level.

>> XHTML2 has whole subsystems like
>> forms and events handling that are redone in completely different
>> ways; there's very little chance of an XHTML1 document functioning
>> correctly when processed as XHTML2.
>
> Yes, you are right, on that, although it's worth looking at these
> issues separately. First, XML Events is a separate spec, and all it
> does is provide a mark-up version of DOM 2 Events. It's used in other
> languages too, has been around for a long time, and it really would be
> a bit weird for HTML 5 not to make use of it.
>
> Secondly, yes, XHTML 2 uses XForms. It is a standard, and over in the
> XForms WG we're working on making it more backwards-compatible.

So you agree that these two areas have been completely replaced by  
incompatible subsystems. This alone rules out large classes of XHTML1  
documents from working in an XHTML2 implementation.

> But the key point that Steven was making is that although people try
> to claim that HTML 5 is backwards-compatible, it really isn't.

I look forward to his promised evidence for his assertion.

> And at the same time, since most of XHTML 2 is about semantics and  
> structure,
> there is very little to implement beyond the forms stuff. In other
> words, HTML 5 claims to be backwards-compatible but isn't, whilst
> XHTML 2 doesn't claim to be backwards-compatible, but is not as big a
> leap as people try to claim.

I think the proof of compatibility is in the pudding. Would an XHTML1  
document be likely to work in an HTML5 implementation? Would it be  
likely to work in an XHTML2 implementation? I think it's pretty clear  
from the specs that the former is much more likely than the latter.

> Don't get me wrong, no-one is saying that there is anything _wrong_
> with being non-backwards--compatible at some point in a language's
> evolution, and HTML 5 is perfectly free to break with HTML 4.01. But
> the reason Steven was making this point is that
> backwards-compatibility is often used by HTML 5 enthusiasts as a stick
> with which to beat XHTML 2, yet it is no more backwards-compatible.

Saying it over and over is not evidence, it is just plain FUD. If you  
want to claim that HTML5 is incompatible, please provide evidence.  
Then we can either fix the spec or explain why you are wrong.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 00:12:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:45 UTC