- 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>
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_ confusion. 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