Re: Use cases

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    
Any day you get all five woodpeckers is a good day.  --Elliotte Rusty Harold

Received on Tuesday, 4 January 2011 21:30:50 UTC