HTML syntax (was: Re: Proposal for developing HTML 5 materials for Web *authors*)

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:16:09 +0100, Dean Edridge <> wrote:
> [...] What if I want to copy some of your markup from one of your HTML5  
> sites and paste it into one of my XHTML5 sites. Since you insist on  
> using no quotes around attributes and no solidus in the void elements  
> (which historically is fine in HTML) it wouldn't work would it?

You would have to copy and paste the DOM in a way.

> You are probably thinking: "Why should I change my markup style?" and  
> yeah, that would seem a fair comment at first.
> But wouldn't it better to just have the one syntax for all markup on the  
> web?

There is no "the one syntax" and believing we might move the whole Web to  
use XML syntax has been proven wrong before. As Maciej already explained  
and you know doing both HTML and XHTML at the same time is hard.

> When we figure out how to use SVG and MATHML in HTML, wont those need to  
> be in the XML syntax? They will need to be, otherwise how will people  
> copy and paste SVGs from the W3c site, my site, and other sites into a  
> text/html site without altering the markup first.

They might have to alter the markup.

>> Also there are things like <style> and <script> which fundamentally  
>> have different syntax in XML and HTML. You could use some weird  
>> workarounds there too though, I suppose.
> Surely it's not too hard to use:
> <script src="js/ufo.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
> This has always worked in HTML and XHTML for me.

It is, actually. Just because you want "the one syntax" doesn't mean I  
should suddenly change all my HTML pages and create new resources for the  
scripts they contain.

> I don't know why I would need to use some "weird workarounds". Unless  
> you are referring to document.write and innerHTML.

Weird workaround are needed if you want inline scripts and style sheets,  
which people definitely want.

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 15:36:44 UTC