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

Re: Publishing a new draft

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:42:33 +0200
Message-ID: <4A7221D9.9070700@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>
Leif Halvard Silli On 09-07-29 12.00:

> Simon Pieters On 09-07-29 10.06:
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 03:30:20 +0200, Leif Halvard Silli  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 

>> 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/)."

>> 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.

Anne,  seeing that Simon too agreed that it would be good if the 
HTML 4/HTML 5 differences document gave more examples of what it 
means by "esoteric SGML" features, perhaps you'll do that?

It is not clear what "esoteric SGML features" means. Here are some 
things that HTML 4 considers esoteric (Appendix B.3.3 and onwards 
of HTML 4) but not all of them are:

* <?PI > syntax  (Not esoteric when considering UA support & 
scripting languages implementation - see the parallel thread.)

* "</" as "end-tag open delimiter". (Well known to anyone trying 
to validate a SCRIPT element with HTML code inside. Probably no 
tears for seeing this "feature" go.)

* Boolean attributes. (Should be well supported - new ones are 
even introduced in HTML 5.)

* Shorthand markup (Of which the currently mentioned NET syntax is 
just one example. Another one is the above mentioned "</" which - 
one could claim - is supported as it produces a "bogus comment". 
While "<>" - empty start tag - is not supported in any way.)

In general, it (A) feels fruitless to lump all this together as 
"esoteric SGML". And (B) many will not understand - it will hamper 
review - unless you give examples.
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 22:43:16 UTC

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