W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2000

Re: XHTML/XML comment

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 17:50:26 -0600
Message-ID: <38961FC2.4CE99469@w3.org>
To: Vidiot <vidiot@vidiot.com>
CC: www-html@w3.org
Hmm... I'm interested to know what led you to take such
a detailed look at XHTML spec... you don't seem to
be as keen on studying the XML nor HTML specs...

Vidiot wrote:
>    4.4 Attribute values must always be quoted.

As several have noted, that's per XML 1.0.

>    C.12 Using Ampersands in Attribute Values

and that one is from HTML/SGML specs. I think there's
an editorial note about it in HTML 2.0... ah yes:


The justification for many of the issues you raise has
been given; I just want to add a bit of motivation for one of them:

Vidiot wrote:
>    4.3 For non-empty elements, end tags are required.

As I and others have noted, that's are a consequence of basing
XHTML on XML. As to "why bother," I recommend you take a look
at the record of a meeting we had to discuss how HTML should
evolve in the face of XML, especially the issues of how
to use the DOM and CSS in HTML documents with XML-ish extensions:

	XML in HTML Meeting Report
	W3C Note 11 May 1998 

In that meeting, we discussed a variety of hacks and kludges for
dealing with XML stuff inside tag-soup-HTML; e.g.:

	Agreement on terminology: XML blocks, significant non-standard
	HTML elements (sometimes also called sprinkles), and
	crud (or real-world HTML).

What I took away from that meeting was: if you really want to use the
DOM and
CSS with HTML, especically HTML with namespace-style extensions, you'll
to clean up your end tags and use XML.

Dan Connolly
Received on Monday, 31 January 2000 18:53:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:52 UTC