Re: Suggestions for the Pave the Cowpaths Examples

Isn't it more about: people use it widely, perhaps not totally
understanding it. There's no harm in allowing it in HTML 5 (including
the HTML serialisation) so let's do so. We're not forcing that syntax
to be used (you can still use <br> in HTML), we're just explicitly
allowing it rather than considering it a validation/conformance issue.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding the <br /> example.



On 8/21/07, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
> >
> > On 20 Aug 2007, at 19:45, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> Many authors have adopted the XHTML syntax for empty elements and the
> >>> practice of including the trailing slash is now quite common.  In
> >>> order to assist with the transition from XHTML 1.0 to HTML5 in the
> >>> future, the trailing slash has been permitted because it is harmless
> >>> and forbidding it would require many authors to make many changes
> >>> that have no practical benefit.
> >>> ...
> >>
> >> Why would anybody who is using XHTML 1.0 right now (served as XML!),
> >> want to transition to HTML5 in the future, instead of XHTML5 (or
> >> whatever it will be called?).
> >
> > Many people serve XHTML 1.0 as text/html, as you are allowed to do.
> > XHTML5 does not allow this. I don't think what those who use XHTML 1.0
> > as application/xhtml+xml do is overly relevant, as they are in the vast
> > minority.
>
> That may all be true, but I think talking about it like that is going to
> cause unneeded confusion.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 14:15:18 UTC