- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:07:02 +0100
- To: "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
On 24 July 2012 07:57, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > James Clark scripsit: > >> - s is HTML5 valid; >> - s is well-formed MicroXML; > > Actually, if "valid" is interpreted strictly, this > is impossible using the minimal MicroXML model. See > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-xml/2011Jan/0236.html . > Void elements can be expressed as <hr> or <hr/>, but <hr></hr>, though > it does the Right Thing, is invalid. Worse yet, in the specific case of > <br></br>, the Wrong Thing happens: you get <br/><br/> in the data model. > > So the question is: is HTML5 validity important in and of itself, or is > doing the Right Thing in the HTML data model sufficient? Could the generation of html5 be pushed up the ... layers/stack to a post process outside of uxml? I.e. take a uxml instance and generate 'valid' html5 from that? Keeps uxml simpler and allows usage with html5? regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2012 07:07:32 UTC