- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:42:01 +0200
- To: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@ltgt.net>
- CC: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
Thomas Broyer On 09-07-22 12.03: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> Do we want the anomaly that <?php ... ?> is valid XHTML 5, but invalid HTML >> 5? > > Yes, just like: > - <feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"> > - xmlns:foo="http://example.net" > - <foo:bar /> > - <p /> I thought HTML 5 was about "HTML, in his own right" ... Those are all specific XHTML syntax examples (although many of us want xmlns="" to be valid in HTML 5 as well). What a strange message to send to PHP users, that they should use XHTML5. ;-) >> What about the UA support, should it be ignored? > > Which UA support? See below. > In text/html, <?php is parsed as a comment According to Live DOM viewer, only Opera and IE render it as a comment in the DOM. (See my first message.) And this UA behavior doesn't seem to documented in the HTML 5 draft - despite its said parsing focus ... > (and ends at the first ">" Already noted in my first message - the SGML/HTML PI syntax starts with "<?" and ends with the first occurrence of ">". > on at least Firefox and Opera: try it with <?php echo "hello > <b>world</b>!"; ?>) So it ends with the ">" in "<b>". Where is the news? UAs support the SGML/HTML PI syntax - that is why it works like this - and it is also in accordance with how the W3 validator sees it. >> What about current >> validators - Validator.w3.org and HTML Tidy? And so on. Should we pretend >> that support for <? > doesn't exist? > > In "HTML as she is spoke"? yes. I disagree that we should pretend. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2009 10:42:42 UTC