W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2005

Re: XHTML as XML

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:12:22 +0000 (UTC)
To: Jesper Tverskov <jesper.tverskov@mail.tele.dk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0502101135230.11379@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Jesper Tverskov wrote:
> 
> I am talking about XHTML 1.1 served as xml. If you validate such a page, 
> the id attribute in the html element is ok but not the class attribute. 
> Since I would like to be able to validate my pages, I can't use the 
> class attribute in the html element but it is true that the browsers 
> don't care. They only test for well-formedness.

Indeed.


> Nice to know that Opera considers it a bug, what about Amaya?

Amaya is a W3C browser, and the W3C spec says it's a bug, so I would guess 
that Amaya developers would agree it's a bug, but I cannot speak for them.


> It is much more important to convince the web community why such a 
> radical new approach to the body and the html elements is necessary when 
> XHTML is served as xml.

It's not a "radically new approach". It's just that all the special 
clauses in the CSS spec that were little hacks for HTML have been removed 
so that XHTML is treated just like any other XML language.

If you have FooML:

   <foo xmlns="uuid:b18b1e81-e259-45c2-ad99-ca6fd4c8d3cb">
    <body>
     Test
    </body>
   </foo>

...then styling the <body> will have no effect beyond styling the <body> 
element (which would typically just be one line high). The <foo> element 
is the one you'd have to style to reach the canvas. And the same applies 
to XHTML, since it's just treated as a generic XML language.


> Web developers are going to hate W3C for this, and it's going to make 
> the transition to an xml based internet more difficult. The arguments 
> for such a radical new approach better be good or the new approach will 
> help undermine the authority of the W3C.

The W3C is pushing a move to XHTML2 and XForms, which is even more of a 
radical approach. In comparison, the removal of some HTML-specific rules 
in CSS seems quite benign. :-)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2005 12:14:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:35 GMT