- From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:24:18 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
2007/7/21, Terry Morris: > At this point I believe it is up to the W3C to follow this groundswell push > for standards and stricter coding. I've been personally dismayed by the > posts on this list suggesting that old-style coding will be preferred in > HTML5. In text/html yes, but you have the choice to use XHTML5 (application/xhtml+xml) if you prefer XML's strictness. > I teach community college web development courses. We cover XHTML > (Transitional 1.0) and CSS. Students are required to write code that passes > W3C XHTML and CSS validators. This structure and attention to detail serves > them well as they continue in later courses and learn JavaScript and > server-side scripting. You'd just have to teach XHTML5. But if you don't teach them XML (i.e. you're teaching them "XHTML 1.0 Appendix C" [1], then you're lying to your students: you're not teaching them XHTML, you're teaching them a "buggy HTML 4" that looks like XHTML. > It's my hope that the W3C's work with HTML5 will support coding standards > for web authors. In the HTML5's text/html serialization, trailing slashes in void element's start tag are allowed (to make that "buggy HTML 4 that looks like XHTML" [1] valid, by allowing void element's start tag to look like XML's EmptyElemTag [2]). ...so you could continue to teach your students the same coding standards / guidelines and now really be teaching them valid HTML ;-) [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-EmptyElemTag -- Thomas Broyer
Received on Saturday, 21 July 2007 17:24:27 UTC