Re: html5 syntax - why not use xml syntax?

Sorry. Maybe because of my english you have found some santences as offence while they are not.

Smylers wrote:


>> It is probably because of backward compatibility but imo it is not
>> good idea.

>You don't think backwards compatibility is a good idea?  You don't want
>HTML5 web browsers to be able to parse lots of existing HTML content?

why not able? So html5 browsers will not display:
<div><em></em><p></p></div>?



>Writing well-formed XML by hand is tricky.  Given that browsers are
>going to have to parse traditional-style HTML anyway, letting authors
>use the simpler, more permissive, syntax makes their lives easier.

>It also increases the amount of valid HTML out there; the lower the
>restrictions on what is valid HTML, the more of the HTML that's written
>will be valid.

>> But there is very big problem in exchanging informations between html
>> and xml formats (or parsing html fragments).

>That's only a problem for those who wish to do that.  Many HTML
>documents go nowhere near any XML documents, XML editors, or XML
>processors.  Many people want nothing at all to do with XML.  Why should
>the lives of those who just want to create webpages and who don't use
>XML be made harder?

Not not only:
1. it will be easier for html coder to switch to xhtml/xml
2. it is easier to remember that every value have to be quoted than some values have to be quoted and some dont have to:

"WOW. If it works:"
<input type=text>
"Maybe i can write:"
<input ... class=input checked>
"instead of:"
<input ... class="input checked">
"Oh no - something does not work. When i have to quote values? Where can i find info? OMG, HTML i s so stupid"

3. Again - it is easier to remember that every tag have to be closed.

"WOW. If it works:"
<li>item
<li>item
"Maybe i can write:"
<div><p>paragraph
<div><p>paragraph
"instead of:"
<div><p>paragraph</p></div>
<div><p>paragraph
</p></div>
"Oh no - something does not work. When i have to close tags? Where can i find info? OMG, HTML i s so stupid"


>> you cannot simply paste it into xml source (or use some kind of xml
>> parser) and then parse entire document, you have to close all tags
>> etc. When you have to put html code into bigger xml document it is
>> madness (not sparta).

>Yes.  But that is only one scenario.  Fortunately HTML5 allows both;
>those with requirements like the above can choose the XML variant; and
>those who prefer the relaxed syntax can use that.

yes - i have choice but there is one browser...

>> Of couse you can say that people still can close tags etc. but i know
>> that THEY CAN != THEY WOULD.

>Who is "THEY"?  Do you mean "all authors" or "some authors"?

they - people who don't know what w3c is. Don't know there is a specification for html.

>> Forcing html-users to write xml compatible code will be very big step
>> forward.

>Why?  You're writing as though it's a universal truth that XML is better
>than non-XML.  Is that a design principle of this group?

It works now very well, but it is called XHTML/Transitional. You can have xml-valid syntax inside text/html document:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary


My idea is to have compatible syntax, but xhtml is xhtml with its own parse and html is html with its own parser. Only syntax is unified.

regards

Received on Saturday, 7 July 2007 08:59:48 UTC