- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:00:21 +0200
- 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 s/Statments/Instructions >> 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