Re: html5 syntax - why not use xml syntax?

Isn't it possible to have compatible syntax already?
Is there any XHTML syntax that is invalid in a HTML document?

Do any of these cause problems in HTML? Is this valid?
<input type="radio" name="foo" value="bar" checked="checked"/>

What about <?xml prolog, @xmlns, @xml:lang?

I have noticed the W3C HTML validator is confused by <link ... /> and
<meta ... /> empty tags, but had assumed it to be a valiator bug.

On 7/7/07, Robert Burns <> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2007, at 3:59 AM, Mynthon Gmail wrote:
> > 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.
> That does seem like the right thing to do for authoring conformance.
> I have a hard tim thinking of any cons for that. Of course there
> would still be HTML 4.0,1 HTML 4, HTML 3.2, etc. — all handled by the
> same HTML parser — along with HTML5. But its hard for me to think of
> downsides to just requiring of authors a very XML-like syntax for
> HTML5's non-SGML / non-XML serialization. We would still need to deal
> with issues of implied elements (e.g., <colgroup> and <tbody>) and
> perhaps some escaping issues when moving between XML and HTML5
> serializations.
> What do other think about this proposal?
> Take care,
> Rob

Received on Saturday, 7 July 2007 11:26:34 UTC