W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Publishing a new draft

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:00:21 +0200
Message-ID: <4A701DB5.5080402@malform.no>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Simon Pieters On 09-07-29 10.06:

> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 03:30:20 +0200, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no> 
> wrote:
>> Though I disagree with the design, but in order to reflect what the 
>> draft actually says - and apparently has said all along, and thus to 
>> ensure (better) review of this decision, I would like to ask Anne to 
>> add to the differences document that HTML 4 Processing Statements 


>> count as invalid markup in HTML 5. And thus that <?php ... ?> is 
>> invalid HTML according to the HTML 5 draft.
> It says
> "HTML 5 defines an HTML syntax that is compatible with HTML 4 and XHTML 
> 1 documents published on the Web, but is not compatible with the more 
> esoteric SGML features of HTML 4, such as the NET syntax (i.e. 
> <em/content/)."

It doesn't "say". It put forward unspecific _clichés_ about 
"esoteric SGML features". And incorrect ones too. PIs are 
supported in UAs and much used, including by the Web's probably 
most widespread server side scripting language - PHP.

(They are so well supported in UAs that the draft has had to 
define them as "bogus comments".)

In fact, these clichés are colored by the text of HTML 4 itself - 
a thing that otherwise is frown upon. But reality is that some of 
those SGML features (including PIs) that HTML 4 itself warns about 
using, in reality have wide support. [1]

> I think this is intended to include processing instructions, but I guess 
> it wouldn't hurt to list more SGML features that are no longer supported.

This is the problem - that we have to /think/ instead of seeing it 
black on white. It is hard to get review on esoteric texts. And 
the purpose is to get review, right?

Only when I initiated the thread about "PHP code only allowed in 
XHTML 5?", where I linked such diffuse language to a concrete 
thing - PHP, did the developer behind the Web's most widespread, 
free WYSIWYG editor step forward and declare that it would be an 
error to disallow PIs in HTML 5. [2]

So the _esoteric_ text about "esoteric SGML features" should be 
stricken (at least the word "esoteric") and become replaced by a 
text that gives concrete list of those features. And PHP deserves 
to be named as an example w.r.t. the PI syntax.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0639
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0609
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 10:01:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:51 UTC