- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:39:44 -0500
- To: Jon Barnett <jonbarnett@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Jul 23, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Jon Barnett wrote: > > [...] > >> No one has ever, as far as I >> am aware, ever explained in a logical way, what could possibly be >> wrong with authoring content that adheres to XHTML appendix C. It has >> simply become a mantra amidst a certain web development clique. >> ... >> Those are very minor differences that would only be gotchas for those >> ignoring Appendix C. Often authors are told to go with external >> stylesheets and external scripts (so that takes care of CDATA >> sections). Do that;, don't count on implicit elements; use Unicode >> characters instead of named character entities and stick with DOM1 >> through DOM3 and you'll be fine (oh and don't count on IE consuming >> your content). There's no need to raise the Homeland Security alert >> level over XHTML. It's just a few things to understand about it >> before vending as XML. However, all that has nothing to do with the >> other reason for following an appendix C syntax: for its consistency >> and readability. > > [...] > > To that, I'll add that document.createElement(), one of the most basic > DOM methods, creates an element without a namespace. If this > quasi-XHTML eventually gets served as XHTML, even > document.createElement would have unintended consequenses. > I forgot to respond to this point. Again, this strikes me as another non-issue. When working with documents within just the HTML namespace, it's important to be consistent in those DOM calls. I don't know of any XHTML implementation that has a problem with creatElement() as long as you stick with non-NS methods throughout. Obviously , you cannot work with multiple namespace elements within one document. However, that should be the biggest caveat of all when vending as text/html: do not mix elements from different namespaces. > [...] Take care, Rob
Received on Monday, 23 July 2007 17:41:55 UTC