W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > December 2006

[whatwg] markup as authored in practice

From: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 17:41:34 -0500
Message-ID: <68fba5c50612021441u6a91ff89oc35fce025cd5a48f@mail.gmail.com>
On 12/2/06, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:55:00 +0100, Robert Sayre <sayrer at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/2/06, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> There's probably no way you can serialize that document.
> >
> > Hmm, Sam's example displayed correctly in Safari, Firefox, Opera, and
> > recent WebKit nightlies.
> Yes. Rendering it is different from serializing it though. I agree that it
> has to work as it does.

What is the benefit of refusing to specify a serialization?

> I'm not sure I see the relation to HTML5.

It's not conclusive, but the fact that


rendered correctly in WebKit nightlies while


regressed (in several different ways depending on the revision) is a
sign that the two ways of serving (X)HTML have more in common than the
HTML5 specification claims.

I don't understand why it's useful to pretend those pages live on
separate planets because they  have different MIME types. It is
already necessary to process XML and HTML5 simultaneously in order to
process syndication feeds, and all current browsers do that reasonably


Robert Sayre
Received on Saturday, 2 December 2006 14:41:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:31 UTC