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

Re: PHP code only allowed in XHTML 5?

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:18:48 +0200
Message-ID: <4A708478.4080003@malform.no>
To: Tom Morris <tom@tommorris.org>
CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Tom Morris On 09-07-29 17.37:

> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 13:05, Lachlan Hunt<lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:


> This whole discussion is ridiculous. Next we'll have users of JSP,
> ColdFusion, ERb, Smarty, Django, Haml, WebObjects, Genshi, Active
> Perl, ASP, OpenACS, Markdown, Textile and the infinite array of wiki
> syntaxes complaining that the HTML validator doesn't validate their
> particular templating or markup-abstraction languages.


What you say here has exactly zero to do with the subject. Why not 
stick to the subject instead of doing namedropping? PHP is just 
mentioned as a usecase for the PI syntax.

> Why should it?
> You wouldn't serve it to the browser without transformation, so why
> expect the validator to validate it?


Why don't you take up this "problem" with the developers of PHP, 
Biferno and other languages that have actively chosen to use the 
PI syntax because it as valid HTML/XHTML and because it is treated 
in a special way in UAs?

 
> If you want to validate something that's not HTML, run the
> transformation process to turn it into HTML first.

PIs are HTML. That's the point. Even <% %> is "is HTML" in the 
sense that it is text, and thus allowed in HTML.

But the proposal in HTML 5 is to make "<? >" forbidden  - an 
outright error from begin with. And that is an disadvantage that 
very few of the languages you mentioned above are suffering from.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 17:19:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:48 UTC