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

Re: HTML syntax

From: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 05:25:27 +1300
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <47445BF7.30306@55.co.nz>

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> There is no "the one syntax" 

But there could be ...... *if* there's not already.

> and believing we might move the whole Web to use XML syntax has been 
> proven wrong before.

No it hasn't been proven wrong. I think that's just your opinion. What 
did you mean exactly? Did you mean that changing the world to XHTML 
didn't work.
Millions of people use wordpress and that uses the XML syntax. So 
wouldn't it work in (X)HTML5.

> As Maciej already explained and you know doing both HTML and XHTML at 
> the same time is hard.

I'm not talking about that, just the quoted attributes & solidus in the 
void elements.

It's not just what I wish to do in the future. It's about the whole 
world, it's about all the documents that will be circulating out there. 
They will be incompatible with each other.
Because a few people are too proud and stuborn to change. Therefore 
millions of people are going to have to deal with the unnecessary 
discrepancies.

How on earth do you think that HTML5 and XHTML5 will live on the web at 
the same time without some type of increased normalisation between the two?


>
>
>> When we figure out how to use SVG and MATHML in HTML, wont those need 
>> to be in the XML syntax? They will need to be, otherwise how will 
>> people copy and paste SVGs from the W3c site, my site, and other 
>> sites into a text/html site without altering the markup first.
>
> They might have to alter the markup.
>
>
>>> Also there are things like <style> and <script> which fundamentally 
>>> have different syntax in XML and HTML. You could use some weird 
>>> workarounds there too though, I suppose.
>>>
>>
>> Surely it's not too hard to use:
>>
>> <script src="js/ufo.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
>>
>> This has always worked in HTML and XHTML for me.
>
> It is, actually. Just because you want "the one syntax" 

It's not just about me.

> doesn't mean I should suddenly change all my HTML pages and create new 
> resources for the scripts they contain.

Why not? Who isn't going to have to make changes to their sites, CMS, 
WYSIWYG editors and so on to suit (X)HTML5.
I think you need to look at the big picture Anne.
Just because the spec has been written so far in a way that suits you, 
Ian and your other friends doesn't mean that in it's current state it 
will be sufficent for the rest of the world.
The spec in fact, still has alot of  "anti XHTML" sentiment that will 
need to be taken out of it. I'll be addressing this in other emails.


>
>
>> I don't know why I would need to use some "weird workarounds". Unless 
>> you are referring to document.write and innerHTML.
>
> Weird workaround are needed if you want inline scripts and style 
> sheets, which people definitely want.
I said that the quoted attributes could be normallised between 
serialisations. I never said anything about converting the world to XHTML.
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 16:25:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:51 UTC