Re: HTML 5

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Steve Comstock wrote:
> DOCTYPE - required but "mostly useless"?

More or less, yes. It's only purpose in text/html now is to avoid 
triggering quirks mode in browsers.

> What about for XHMTL? Do I need a DOCTYPE?

This is covered in the section on XHTML:

> Where's all the definitive attributes for all the elements?

The plan is to have a summary table here:

I'll probably fill that in in a few weeks.

> What elements, tags, attributes, values have case sensitivty?

This is a very complicated question with an answer that is spread 
throughout the specification.

> Where does XHTML 5 differ from HTML 5 on this?

There are very few differences, but where they exist they are covered in 
the relevant parts of the spec, e.g. the syntax differences are covered in 
the syntax sections, the DOM differences are covered in the DOM section, 
and so on.

> It looks like you are intending to include XHTML 5 in the HTML 5 
> recommendation, but there are lots of areas that need more careful and 
> complete descriptions, especially in pointing out where XHTML 5 differs 
> from HTML 5.

As far as I can tell, these are all well-defined, they're just not 
summarised anywhere in the spec. However, I'm not sure such a summary 
would really be that useful other than as an introduction, and for that 
documents such as Mike's draft will be more helpful:

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 03:42:18 UTC