- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 02:57:19 -0400
- To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Cc: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>, "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
James Clark scripsit: > - s is HTML5 valid; > - s is well-formed MicroXML; Actually, if "valid" is interpreted strictly, this is impossible using the minimal MicroXML model. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-xml/2011Jan/0236.html . Void elements can be expressed as <hr> or <hr/>, but <hr></hr>, though it does the Right Thing, is invalid. Worse yet, in the specific case of <br></br>, the Wrong Thing happens: you get <br/><br/> in the data model. So the question is: is HTML5 validity important in and of itself, or is doing the Right Thing in the HTML data model sufficient? Other useful references: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/HTML_vs._XHTML http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-xml/2010Dec/0009.html (by you) and my reply at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-xml/2010Dec/0014.html -- Henry S. Thompson said, / "Syntactic, structural, John Cowan Value constraints we / Express on the fly." cowan@ccil.org Simon St. Laurent: "Your / Incomprehensible http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Abracadabralike / schemas must die!"
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2012 06:57:42 UTC