W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2003

Re: The HTML Element

From: Arthur Wiebe <webmaster@awiebe.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:43:12 -0400
Message-ID: <3EEDC970.1070207@awiebe.com>
To: Andy Holmes <aholmes84@shaw.ca>, www-html@w3.org
Andy Holmes wrote:

> Arthur Wiebe wrote:
>
>>
>> I propose that since XHTML is XHTML not HTML, that we change the 
>> <html> element to something that would make more sense. 
>
>
> As far as I'm concerned (very generally speaking of course) XHTML *is* 
> HTML; the obvious difference being that it's extensible. It's still 
> hypertext, it's still a markup language. Unless it becomes proposed 
> that UA's distinguish HTML from XHTML via the root element, I see no 
> reason to change it other than for the novelty of it. It will, in my 
> humble opinion, just create unnecessary confusion unless like I 
> mentioned it actually serves a purpose.

As far as I'm concerned, XHTML is *not* HTML. It's a lot /like/ HTML but 
it's more of an XML language than HTML. And since it's not HTML it would 
be better if the root element was <xhtml> not <html>. Right now a lot of 
people think they are writing XHTML but the browser thinks it's HTML 
because of the <html> root element. They usually use text/html and also 
don't have a DOCTYPE. Even with a DOCTYPE IE for example treats XHTML as 
HTML. Setting the root element to <xhtml> would force better implimentation.
It would not create confusion, but rather get rid of some confusion. 
Poeple would be able to write XHTML! Not HTML with an XHTML DOCTYPE.

>
>
>> Why not change it to something like <xhtml>? Or if someone can't 
>> stand that extra letter then we could also change it to <root>?
>
>
> No, if it were to be changed at all, <xhtml> would be the way to go. 
> <root> is *far* too general.
>
> -Andy
>

I agree that <xhtml> would be better than <root>
<Arthur/>
Received on Monday, 16 June 2003 09:43:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:55 GMT