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

Re: mixed signals on "Writing HTML documents", tutorial, etc.

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:55:02 +1000
Message-ID: <4680E276.3040609@lachy.id.au>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>

Dan Connolly wrote:
> When introducing the language to authors, I prefer to stay within
> the bounds of XML. I understand from instructors that this goes
> over well with students. (I hope some of the instructors on this
> list will chime in to give 1st-hand evidence.)

Actually, teaching XHTML to beginners is a mistake because it's much 
more complex than people think, and it's usually taught under HTML 
conditions, which provides no real benefits whatsoever.

http://lachy.id.au/log/2005/12/xhtml-beginners

> So I'd present that as:
> 
> <!DOCTYPE html>
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

That's a perfect example to illustrate my point.  In XHTML, that DOCTYPE 
is unnecessary and meaningless.  In HTML, the xmlns is unnecessary and 
meaningless (it's only permitted because it's so widely used and 
harmless).  Don't waste time teaching useless features.

If you think it's easier to always use end tags, always quote attribute 
values, etc., then teach that as good practice in HTML.  There is no 
need to use XHTML for that, especially it's just being taught under HTML 
conditions.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 09:55:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:01 GMT