- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:29:42 +0100
- To: temp17@staldal.nu, public-html-comments@w3.org
Disclaimer: This is not an official WG response. On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:24:29 +0100, <temp17@staldal.nu> wrote: > > Why is it forbidden to use the XML syntax with text/html? It's not forbidden. The <html> element is allowed to have xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml', and void elements are allowed to have a trailing slash. > Why not have a HTML compatible XML syntax as defined in XHTML 1.0, > appendix C? It is... if you want it to be. > The HTML5 WD says in section 1.4.1: > > The first such concrete syntax is "HTML5". This is the format > > recommended for most authors. It is compatible with all legacy Web > > browsers. If a document is transmitted with the MIME type text/html, > > then it will be processed as an "HTML5" document by Web browsers. > > Why is this syntax recommended? AIUI, because of wider support in UAs, because the syntax is more forgiving, and because most authors use it already. > Why not recommend the XML syntax instead? Why should it be recommended instead? > Doesn't most web browsers in use today support the XML syntax? If you count the user base, most browsers in use today actually don't support XHTML. > After all, the XHTML recommendation has been around for almost 8 years. Indeed. > Some web browsers in small devices like mobile phones only supports > XHTML. Which ones? My research suggests the exact opposite: most mobile browsers support only HTML, the exception being Opera which supports both HTML and XHTML. http://simon.html5.org/articles/mobile-results Cheers, -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 09:29:56 UTC