- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 09:28:55 -0500
- To: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Hi Geoffrey, On Jul 7, 2007, at 8:40 AM, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: > On 7 Jul 2007, at 13:33, Robert Burns wrote: > >> I hadn't followed the link when I replied earlier. That article is >> one of those articles I was talking about, that contribute to the >> confusion (xhtml syntax wants to kill you and everyone you care >> about! hear the details at 11!). The mistake is thinking that HTML >> is SGML the / solidus (/) can potentially serve as an element >> terminus in SGML, if the DTD allows for it. However, HTML UAs do >> not follow SGML strictly. If they did, the solidus termination >> would still depend on the HTML DTD: including a potential HTML5 >> DTD, if we changed gears and went with an SGML serialization. >> There's no reason our DTD couldn't ensure the solidus was not >> treated as a element terminator if we went that route. > > The question asked was whether it is currently possible to put > XHTML syntax in a valid HTML document (to which the answer is no, > as it'll be invalid due to NETs). Whether HTML5 uses SGML or not > (if it does it has really lost relevancy with the real world) is > irrelevant as to whether it is allowed under the current standards. > There's nothing in the spec that preludes someone from creating an > SGML serialisation of HTML 5, though… If we were discussing adding NETs to the "classic HTML" serialization wouldn't you be telling us that we can't do that because there's not a single HTML UA on the planet that supports them? Take care, Rob
Received on Saturday, 7 July 2007 14:29:04 UTC