- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:17:12 +0100
- To: "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:52:16 +0100, Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> Then use XHTML5 with the proper media type. > > Not "visible with any browser" => showstopper. Fair enough. >> XHTML 1.x as text/html didn't have this feature either. > > Of course it has, I use XHTML validators to find bugs, > not browsers desperately trying to display something. The work in progress HTML5 validator has a feature that allows you to override the MIME type and therefore to validate as XHTML5 as Simon pointed out. >> Netscape 3 is sort of irrelevant at this point. > > It could also affect 4.x (for those poor confused > folks thinking that 4.x was "better" than 3.x ;-), at > some point in time <br /> and friends were important > enough to be mentioned in the notorious "appendix C". That was because HTML 4 was based on SGML where <br /> meant something completely different. > Clearly HTML5 has better things to do than to worry > about such historical issues, but just allowing <br/> > "also" in HTML when it never really worked in XHTML 1 > is a rather odd move. Why can't they simply use <br> > in HTML 1+, visible with any browser ? Due to a lot of people advocating usage of <br/> / <br /> in text/html content it is more cost-effective to simply allow it -- given that it works interoperably in "current" browsers -- than to try to change the mindset of all those authors. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 13:14:14 UTC