Re: Introducing the W3C HTML/XML Task Force

Julian Reschke, Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:56:35 +0100:
> On 28.12.2010 22:39, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> ...
>> In what sense is there a _growing_ chasm between HTML and XML? HTML today
>> is significantly closer to XML than HTML4 was, for example it supports the
>> "/" syntax on void elements, it allows xmlns="" talismans, etc. Surely the
>> two are in fact closer than ever. Indeed even before the HTMLWG was
>> restarted at the W3C, the WHATWG had spent significant efforts in getting
>> them as close as possible while maintaining backwards compatibility.
>> ...
> One factor here certainly is perception. HTML5 documents a chasm that 
> was already there. It makes it more clear what the chasm is.
> That being said, it *is* growing partly. For instance, HTML5 didn't 
> need to add new void elements, and it could have ruled them out for 
> the future.

Regarding <void>: 'chasm' or respect for the HTML system/identy? If you 
have parsing in mind, how can one say no to void elements in HTML 
without saying no to <void/> in XHTML as well? Which option would you 

1) Parse <newVoid> as non-void. 
   Parse <newVoid/> and <img> as void. 
   Require authors to use XHTML syntax - '/>'.
2) Parse <newVoid> like <img> is parsed.
   Require authors to use XHTML syntax: 
   <img/> + <img></img>, <newVoid/> + <newVoid></newVoid>

I think HTML5 is currently following the second option, with the 
exception that <newVoid></newVoid> and <img></img> is not permitted. 
The reason for not permitting <newVoid></newVoid> and <img></img> is 
probably the problem related to '</br>'. 
leif halvard silli

Received on Wednesday, 29 December 2010 18:22:57 UTC