Re: HTML/XML Task Force Minutes 11 Jan 2011

Norman Walsh scripsit:

>    JC: What limitations are there on HTML5? E.g., I know about noscript.

That should have been "What limitations are there on XHTML5?"

>    JC: How it's parsed depends on whether you have scripting.

That is, if scripting is enabled, the content is plain text, whereas
if scripting is disabled, it's regular HTML5.

>    HS: There is some implementation in the runtimes for giving the HTML DOM
>    as input to XSLT processing (scribe isn't sure he got this right)

That's what I heard, yes.

>    HS: The set of programming languages supported natively by browsers has
>    always been "1" across multiple browsers, that is Javascript. Internet
>    Explorer has for years also supported VBScript. There are also good
>    accessibility(?) APIs that allow languages to be plugged in.

What I heard was "extensibility APIs".

>    HS: So, the pattern is formalized in HTML5. An alternative is using
>    <STYLE>. 

Does that really work?  IIUC, descendant elements of STYLE are parsed and
then the value (in the XSLT sense) is taken.  So it wouldn't work for
embedding unescaped XML, because the XML would wind up being parsed as HTML.

>    <hsivonen> existing browsers wouldn't honor NORUN

True, but that matters only for a few media-types that might be run.
In particular, it's safe to say that text/plain would never be run (in
which case the "what to do with it" could be recorded in one of the data-*
attributes or other extensibility points).

Why are well-meaning Westerners so concerned that   John Cowan
the opening of a Colonel Sanders in Beijing means
the end of Chinese culture? [...]  We have had
Chinese restaurants in America for over a century,
and it hasn't made us Chinese.  On the contrary,
we obliged the Chinese to invent chop suey.            --Marshall Sahlins

Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 05:50:25 UTC