- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:27:13 +0100
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:31:55 -0600, Shelley Powers wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Julian Reschke: >> Julian Reschke wrote: >>> Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> Clarifying: I disagree with "...we can all agree on ... they have a need to >> implement non-draconian...". > Forgive my denseness here, but can someone point out the message > in this thread that is directly relevant to a possible change > in the HTML5 specification? > > Anne mentioned something about being tasked at TPAC for providing a > solution for making namespaces "usable on the web". That seems to > exceed this group's charter a bit. Especially when we get into > discussions about XML5. We discuss whether to change text/HTML or not w.r.t. to namespaces. I think Anne's idea with XML5 was: Let namespaces happen in XML. Not in text/HTML. Thus his message relates to HTML5 in the sense that if we follow his proposal then we will /not/ need to add namespaces to text/HTML. I assume that many vendors think that it is easier to add recovery to XML than to add namespaces to text/HTML. Anne proposes making XML more attractive for authors and vendors by adding recovery as a solution to the "distributed extensibility on the Web" problem. The question then is: Would this make Microsoft support XML in Internet Explorer? And what about the XML folks? It sounded to me as if many of them could accept such a recovery spec, as long as the result of the recovery is clearly labeled as "not XML". It is unclear to me why you and Julian disagree with that approach. Maciej, OTOH, in his "XML and HTML differences" reply in this thread[1], talked about making text/HTML more attractive, by making it more like XML. I believe that with Maciej's approach, then text/HTML (with namespaces support) could become the recovery format for XML. Opera - and only Opera - already offers users a button to reparse malformed XHTML as text/HTML. I don't know if your or Julian finds Opera's behaviour acceptable, though ... The important question is what the effect of XML5 would be on HTML5: In theory HTML5 would become more of transitional format if user agents would support XML5. But the other possible effect of delegating namespaces to XML is that text/HTML is left in the same dark as it was left in when W3 shifted its focus to XML and XHTML. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Nov/0414 -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 16:27:44 UTC