- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 11:28:35 -0500
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote: > Secondly, modules can be written more cleanly if it can be checked that > they explicitly close each tag that they open. If a module leaves a <p> > tag open at the end of its output, then a second module that only > outputs inline text will find itself as run-on content in the same > paragraph. A reasonable point. > Lastly, using XHTML is useful if one module needs to modify the output > of another module. It means that the modifying module can use > off-the-shelf XML manipulation tools (XSLT, XML parsers, etc). Yes, I'll grant that's true. Actually, it looks like when Wikipedia switches to HTML5, it will stick with well-formed XML (at least at first) for just this reason. So I take back that statement. There are some legitimate reasons to switch from HTML4 to XHTML1-as-text/html. But I don't think most projects switched because of them, and anyway, the rest of my post stands.
Received on Monday, 2 November 2009 16:29:16 UTC