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

[whatwg] microformats incompatible with WebApps 1.0 ?

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:26:33 +0900
Message-ID: <83CDACEF-315F-4C6B-B56D-A7E5FD90AE2F@w3.org>

Le 12 d?c. 2006 ? 09:56, Ian Hickson a ?crit :
> In HTML5, the above can now be written as:
>
>    <!DOCTYPE HTML>
>    <html>
>     <head>
>      <title>Tantek's Thoughts</title>
>
> ...which is far easier to write and understand.

agreed. It is even simpler for XHTML 2.0, and you do not need the  
DOCTYPE.
One line less. :)

a minimal strictly conforming XHTML 2.0 Document is:

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/" xml:lang="en">
    <head>
      <title>Tantek's Thoughts</title>


>> Then in the page there are things like
>>
>> <ul class="xoxo facets">
>>    <li><a href="http://technorati.com/profile/tantek"
>> rel="me">Technorati</a></li>
>> </ul>
>>
>> rel="me" has a meaning because of the profile up there.
>
> With the new proposal, the above still works, but doesn't require the
> profile attribute.

:) wonderful for all people using class="something" in their pages.  
For backward compatibility, will it be asked to thousand of people to  
fix their class names because it will be interpreted by parsers in  
the wrong way?

> The disambiguation thing is nice in theory (which is why I wrote a
> detailed normative description for how to handle it about a year or  
> two
> ago, in far more detail than HTML4 ever did), but in practice  
> nobody uses
> it and it therefore it doesn't actually disambiguate anything.

because people *can not* do it in most cases. profiles in head  
section. As we say in French, you just made a circular reasoning "Le  
serpent se mange la queue."

>>> Unfortunately in both cases we don't really have any choice; for  
>>> back
>>> compat, <link> and <meta> elements that aren't in the <head> must be
>>> moved to the <head> by the parser.
>>
>> Then for back compatibility you will have to keep the profile  
>> attribute.
>
> I don't really see why. Nobody uses it. What useful content would  
> you be
> being compatible with?

	*nobody* ? which is a false statement.

>> See
>> 4. Using GRDDL with valid XHTML
>>    http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#grddl-xhtml
>>
>> Parsers are not only browsers parsers.
>
> Removing profile="" makes GRDDL implementations easier and makes  
> them more
> compatible with existing content. How is that not a boon?

I though it was nobody just from above.

>> Do you have an explanation for the why of
>> 	"<link> and <meta> elements that
>> 	aren't in the <head> must be moved
>> 	to the <head> by the parser."
>
> It's what browsers do... what do you mean?

So what you are saying is that old browsers now put back the link and  
meta in the head section. Recovering the tag soup. Though it doesn't  
forbid any microformat parsers to analyze the thing in situ in the  
tree. And it is still a benefit for the end user.


-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Monday, 11 December 2006 17:26:33 UTC

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