- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:12:08 -0400
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Cc: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>, MicroXML <public-microxml@w3.org>
David Carlisle scripsit: > To give a specific example if the comment syntax is allowed > > <!-- .... --> > > it had better make a comment or (less good but acceptable, be discarded) I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The alternatives currently on the table are "is discarded" and "is disallowed altogether". But if that's all you mean by having the same data model, then certainly: elements remain elements, attributes remain attributes, comments and PIs remain comments and PIs (if we have them). > what would not be good at all would be if that syntax made an element or > text or some other incompatible thing at the data model level. That would be absurd. > If you push for compatibility at the level of syntax only you get things > like html parsing of <foo/> which is accepted syntax but it is a start > tag not an empty tag. I fail to see why that is useful (in general, or > in html) Because people who know too much XML got in the habit of writing <br/> instead of proper HTML <br> as an empty-tag, and so HTML5 legitimized it. -- An observable characteristic is not necessarily John Cowan a functional requirement. --John Hudson cowan@ccil.org
Received on Monday, 13 August 2012 21:12:30 UTC