- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 10:38:57 +0300
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: HTML Issue Tracking WG <public-html@w3.org>
On May 12, 2008, at 10:12 , Henri Sivonen wrote: > On May 12, 2008, at 05:06 , Sam Ruby wrote: > >> > Conclusion: >> > >> > It seems to me that mixing XHTML5 with product-specific elements >> and >> > attributes in XML is a good fit for this extension case. No new >> > extension mechanism is needed, since Namespaces in XML are >> available. >> > >> > Objection: XML is too hard because it's Draconian. >> > Answer: Then we need non-Draconian XML5. >> > Follow-up objection: Want one syntax instead of two (HTML5 and >> XML5). >> >> Actually, I believe that the answer above is arguing for THREE >> syntaxes. XHTML5 is not going away. Nor is it going to usurp the >> web. So we either need Case #3 addressed by text/html, OR by a new >> syntax that has most of the charateristics of HTML5. Note: I am >> *not* arguing for three syntaxes, I am stating that EITHER this >> needs to be addressed by text/html OR we need three syntaxes. >> > Fair enough. > > I will then argue that we shouldn't let case #3 inconvenience > authoring for browsers, so if we end up with a two-way choice of > adding a third syntax or making the browser-targeted syntax crufty, > I think we should add a third syntax instead of making targeting the > multi-vendor Web platform crufty in order to enable the same syntax > target specific non-browser products. One more thing: "XML5" means a parser spec that could replace XML 1.0 parsing thereby not increasing the number of parsers a product needs to have if the product is to consume both XML5 and XML 1.0 content. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 12 May 2008 07:39:47 UTC