W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > November 2006

Re: [whatwg] The problems with namespaces in text/html

From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 11:30:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3065.217.124.69.213.1162927813.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>
To: <www-math@w3.org>


> to allow any of
>
>                   1.  <foo>
>                   2.  <foo></foo>
>                   3.  <foo/>
>
> when "foo" is a defined-empty element.  Note also that usage 2 is
> formally incorrect for a defined-empty element in HTML 4.01.
>
> I suggest that byte streams fed to HTML5 be allowed to have any of the
> three forms above when an element is defined-empty.  (I don't see any
> explicit mention of defined-empty elements in the whatwg spec.)

>From anyone from WhatWG:

<blockquote>
The simplest example is the XHTML "<br/>" which in HTML means "<br>&gt;".

Note that I didn't say Tag Soup compatible XHTML was a myth. I said
HTML compatible XHTML is a myth.

It is a simple fact that a valid XHTML1 document can never validate as
HTML4, and vice versa. That is all that "HTML compatible XHTML is a
myth" means.
</blockquote>

Moreover, so far as i know HTML5 is claimed to be Mozilla reply to next
year XML Microsoft technology. HTML5 is designed to be not compatible with
Microsoft XML (and MSIE) by default.

Moreover, leaving <foo/> for empty tags not solve integration issues of
MathML, think of <mrow/>, it would be incompatible with HTML5.
Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2006 20:49:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:59 GMT