- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 16:27:12 -0500
- To: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html-xml@w3.org
Kurt Cagle scripsit: > At this point only a very small fraction of the HTML out there (maybe > 0.01 percent) is HTML5, and most of that is in the use of <video> and > <audio> tags. HTML5 is not HTML4, though it is obviously backwards > compatible. While it is sometimes convenient to use the weight of > existing HTML in these arguments, the reality is that HTML5 is still > an ongoing work in progress, subject to change. For present purposes, I would rather say that almost no content is either valid HTML 4.0 or valid HTML5, but an HTML5 engine is able to process almost all of it, a pre-HTML5 engine rather less. > One question that should be asked is how much of the "ill-formed" (from the > XML perspective) comes from developers coding websites mostly be hand > (perhaps with a JSP or similar substitution layer handling individual text > substitution) and how much comes from web application frameworks? > > If the former dominates (and will continue to dominate), then I think that > the argument of HTML5 as a language distinct from XML makes sense. The overwhelming legacy HTML (all of which processable as is HTML5, even if invalid) is really the dominant effect. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Any day you get all five woodpeckers is a good day. --Elliotte Rusty Harold
Received on Tuesday, 4 January 2011 21:30:50 UTC