W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Bug 7034

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:17:25 +0100
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100324111725221921.c460b535@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Anne van Kesteren, Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:18:43 +0100:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:39:43 +0100, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On 03/23/2010 05:14 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> I don't think it is acceptable really to use xmlns as mode switch.

Authoring switch rather than mode switch.

> I 
> don't see what the problem is with keeping the syntax about as loose 
> as all versions of HTML have been so far

According to MAMA: [1] 

"Transitional" Doctype flavors dominated over their "strict" and 
"frameset" variants by more than 10 to 1.

But HTML5 currently forbids many elements [2] and even more attributes 
[3] that "transitional" allows. E.g. <center> is number 25 on the 
element popularity rank, according to [2].

> and making the requirements 
> on which elements and attributes you can use slightly stricter as 
> seems to have been the overall trend as well. Which as far as I can 
> tell is appreciated by authors.

So may be xmlns would be pop? After all, the tightening of the syntax, 
to exclude presentational elements, has happened in - and are connected 
with - the xmlns based specs, to a large degree. I remember reading 
something to the same extent in your blog, hundreds of years ago. ;-) 
As you correctly said then, XHTML1.0 is not more semantic than HTML4.0, 
but the perception still is that XHTML syntax is more "semantic".

> I can definitely see the point that in certain environments (e.g. 
> when you work with a large team) you want stricter requirements on 
> syntax as well and it would certainly make sense to me if the 
> validator had some options for that, but having it triggered by 
> markup will just lead to confusion.

At the very least, I doubt that it will _just_ lead to confusion:

James Graham, Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:22:16 +0100 (CET):
> The choice of xmlns in particular seems bad as it conflates issues of 
> XML-ness and conformance.

That xmlns is permitted inside the <html> start tag *without* there 
being any requirement for XML-ness, will at least create _some_ 

And a document without xmlns could be conforming as well - to some 
other set of requirements. So I do not see that it conflates 
conformance and xml-ness.

[1] http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/mama-key-findings/#structsize
[2] http://devfiles.myopera.com/articles/532/elemlist-url.htm
[3] http://devfiles.myopera.com/articles/532/attrlist-url.htm
leif halvards silli
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 10:18:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:14 UTC