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 22:43:59 +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: <20100324224359638025.916a4619@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Anne van Kesteren, Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:29:31 +0100:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:17:25 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli 
> <xn--mlform-iua@målform.no> wrote:
>> Anne van Kesteren, Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:18:43 +0100:
>>> I don't think it is acceptable really to use xmlns as mode switch.
>> 
>> Authoring switch rather than mode switch.
> 
> It's a validator mode switch alright.

The alternative is a manual validator 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].
> 
> I don't see what this has to do with syntax.

HTML5 also forbids parts of the syntax that HTML4 allows ... <p />. But 
OK.

> Also, do we really still need to have arguments over why transitional 
> doctypes are bad (they trigger an inferior rendering mode for one) 

I did not mean to focus on the transitional <!doctype>s and their 
effect on rendering, which I of course are fully aware of. My point was 
about the transitional document types - the semantics (= the elements) 
that the transitional document types allows, and which authors that are 
validating pages therefore are used to expect to see as permitted to 
use.

> and why presentational markup is to be avoided?

The task is to find the right semantics. Sometimes presentational 
semantics is the right semantics.

>>> 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".
> 
> Keeping people delusional does not seem like a good strategy.

There would be no delusion if the xmlns string signified a selection of 
elements from the strict document type.

>>> 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.
> 
> Yeah, polyglot documents are highly confusing.

I don't see how allowing it as talisman only reduces confusion.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 21:44:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:00 UTC