- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:49:55 -0400
- To: Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>
- Cc: public-microxml@w3.org
Uche Ogbuji scripsit: > > Wouldn't it be simpler to simply let users hang themselves as if > > they were writing HTML ? > > +1. We shouldn't have special words in the spec for the HTML vocab. > I'm sure there will be a separate advisory document on best practices > for HTML-compatible MicroXML, just as there has been for XHTML and > "XHTML5". HTML is mentioned in one of our goals, and James's original idea was that a document which is both well-formed MicroXML and valid XHTML would by definition be valid HTML5. I think that's still something worth pursuing. In any case, if we want HTML compatibility, we absolutely must have empty tags because of the "br" element. -- What is the sound of Perl? Is it not the John Cowan sound of a [Ww]all that people have stopped cowan@ccil.org banging their head against? --Larry http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 21:50:17 UTC