- From: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
- Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:06:12 +1200
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Philip Taylor <philip@zaynar.demon.co.uk>, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote: > > Simply put, Appendix C is out-dated, if in fact, it ever was correct. > > It might be instructive to look at an actual use case: > > http://people.w3.org/mike/planet/html5/ > > That page, by virtue of the software that produces it, is consistently > well formed (I'm assuming that it is based on an XSLT template that I > produced), but it is currently being served by as text/html. > > I'll assert that the subset of HTML and XHTML that that page uses is > useful. > > One question that this workgroup could choose to tackle: is it in our > best interests to increase or decrease that subset? > > - Sam Ruby > Hi Sam, I don't have a major problem with that page [1]. I do think the <br />'s and <meta ....../>'s are a bit ugly though, and may cause novices to think that they are using XHTML 5. However if this makes it easier for people to switch between HTML 5 and XHTML 5 that's fine. However I don't like that syntax myself and I'll stick with my content negotiation script thanks. All I'm saying is that documents like this, when being sent as "text/html", are in fact HTML 5 documents and not XHTML 5 documents. [1] http://people.w3.org/mike/planet/html5/ -- Dean Edridge http://www.zealmedia.co.nz/
Received on Sunday, 2 September 2007 06:06:23 UTC