Re: let authors choose text/html or application/xhtml+xml (detailed review of section 1. Introduction)

HI Dan, Phil and Kornel,


On Aug 30, 2007, at 6:53 PM, Kornel Lesinski wrote:

>
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:12:03 +0100, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>  
> wrote:
>
>> XHTML documents served as text/html result in interoperable behavior
>> in typical cases, so that constraint is too strong. Please change
>> it to "SHOULD be sent..." and "SHOULD NOT be served...".

I read the original passage quoted by DanD to be solely about XML  
delivered HTML and therefore not really relevant to the text  
serialization. MUST NOT be sent as text/html seems the appropriate  
thing to say for that context.

However, there's a tendency in the draft I would like us to continue  
and strengthen. That is the draft should talk about HTML as the  
abstract form of the language independent of its various  
serializations. Most of our recommendation will be about HTML in this  
sense. The two serializations we support could simply be called the  
'XML serialization' and the 'text serialization. These serializations  
would only be addressed in terms of separate chapters on  
serialization and parsing and probably to explicitly exclude  
semantics that are not available in one serialization or the other  
(such as structured-inline content in a P element). To me there's no  
reason to eve necessarily use the term XHTML in relation to our work.  
I think it might only contribute to general confusion.

The only other problem I see is our goal to support a hybrid  
serialization (like the XHTNL 1.0 appendix C). This means there will  
be a serialization of HTML5 that — as long as it doesn't take  
advantage of text-only or XML-only features — works either as XML or  
as text. Though this may be too much detail to get into in the  
introduction.

Take care,
Rob

Received on Friday, 31 August 2007 00:33:23 UTC