Re: Prevalence of ill-formed XHTML

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/