Re: Why HTML should be taught as HTML without pretending it is XML

Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2007, at 06:20, Karl Dubost wrote:
>>     - for Professional to have a strict way of authoring which 
>> benefits the industry
> ...
>> If Web designers say, we will come up with an HTML 5 profile that we 
>> consider needed for our activity, it can perfectly become an "HTML 5 
>> profile for Web pro" specification for this market.
> 
> I'm curious, though, what the actual benefit would be for the industry... 
> 
> Would the profile be something that a source code pretty-printer would 
> produce or something that conformance checkers would be expected to 
> check?

I think there could be a number of issues that such a document could 
address, with numerous benefits:

* How to convert from XHTML to HTML and back again, dealing with issues
   like:
   - <?xml encoding=""?> to <meta charset="">
   - xml:lang to lang
   - xml:base to <base> or rewriting URIs to fully qualified URIs, if
     required.
   - How to serialise the content of <noscript>, <noframes>, etc.
     elements in XHTML.
   - Optional elements, like <tbody>
   - etc.
* Guidelines for pretty printers (like HTML Tidy)
* Coding conventions for authors
   - Quoting attribute values with ""
   - lowercase tag names and attribute values
   - etc.

I think the authoring guidelines should be given the least weight, since 
they have little technical impact and will be the greatest source of 
conflicts in personal opinions.  Therefore, I think it would be wise to 
allow for flexibility in such guidelines and leave some of the specifics 
up to individual organisations or authors.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 09:29:21 UTC