- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 21:09:29 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>, Eliot Graff <eliotgra@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Henri Sivonen, Tue, 27 Apr 2010 06:13:09 -0700 (PDT):
> In my opinion, tools like KompoZer should use the XML serialization
> if the file name ends in .xhtml and the HTML serialization if the
> file name ends in .html.
It would be great if they did! But ...
1) How does the HTML serialization look like? <link /> or <link>?
2) Do you have behavior data? Some mixed Mac & Windows data:
2A) Preselected suffix when creating a new XHTML 1.0 file:
.xhtml: Oxygen [for Strict doctype only].
.html: (texteditors:) Seedit, TextMate, Notepad++
(WYSIWYG-ish:) Amaya, KompoZer, NVU,
XMLmind XML Editor, Oxygen [for Transitional doctype],
[ and many many more ]
.xml: Serna
The above means that tools in the wild do not ignore whether
the DOCTYPE says XHTML or HTML4.
Ignoring DOCYPE could destroy the XHTML documents with .html
suffix, when they were reinterpreted as HTML4-ish documents.
Curiosa: OpenOffice's XHTML export defaults to .html, even
when using the XHTML 1.1 plus MathML doctype.
2B) Preselected suffix when saving one of Sam's pages,
http://intertwingly.net/blog/
(application/xhtml+xml & <!DOCTYPE html>):
.xhtml: Safari, Firefox,
.html: NVU, KompoZer, BlueGriffonALPHA, IE7-8,
SeaMonkey Composer, iCab (iCab being corrected)
.xml: Opera
2C) Browser/browser editors maintaining XHTML syntax of
http://intertwingly.net/blog/
(application/xhtml+xml & <!DOCTYPE html>)
when saving to disk:
Yes: Firefox, Opera, Webkit, IE
No: NVU, SeaMonkey Composer, BlueGriffonALPHA, KompoZer
2D) Repeating 3C) for the No-tools, with an XHTML doctype added:
Yes, now it is preserved: NVU, KompoZer
Doesn't matter: SeaMonkeyCompozer, BlueGriffonALPHA
3) Editors (humans and apps) want to know, when they create new
documents, and before they save the document (thus: before they add any
suffix), whether they deal with a HTML4-ish or XHTML-ish syntax.
Btw, what are 'tools like KompoZer'?
> Polyglot documents provide enough rope for authors to shoot
> themselves in the foot with, so I think tools like KompoZer shouldn't
> attempt to generate polyglot documents.
It's more or less norm, for editors (humans + apps) to, when they
create non-compound XHTML documents, use polyglot syntax.
And many Web apps that are based on XHTML stretch the interpretation of
what polyglot syntax is far beyond Appendix C. E.g. check the
<meta></meta>, the <link></link> and the <img></img> elements of the
web site of the popular (in Scandinavia) platform Idium,
http://www.idium.no. It creates fully valid XHTML pages, served as
text/html.
> Not attempting the [to] generate polyglot documents removes the need
> to address problems related to polyglot documents.
The KompoZer devs could indeed say "sorry, no more <img /> with our
tool". But, they could just as well say "Always <img /> with our tool".
The latter option would be much more universally useful.
Following your logic to the end, one shouldn't even need to use
<!DOCTYPE html> in XHTML documents. In practice, this would lead to
Quirks Mode galore.
--
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2010 19:10:04 UTC