RE: What to do about newlines in attribute values?

I appreciate your (Uche) frustration ... but why I think this is relevant is this.

If a (special subset of) MicroXML document *is a* HTML5 document then things like tab and newlines in attributes matter,
So do things like <br>  vs <br/> vs < br><br/>

But if MicroXML documents are not actually HTML5 but can  be serialized as such then such things matter less so as we can defer the cleanup to the serialization process.

I think it matters quite a bit if we say "A special case of MicroXML documents can be literally used as HTML5" vs "MicroXML can be used as an input format for generating HTML5".

My vote would be the later.  And to drop any goals that claim MicroXML "is a" HTML5 document and move it to "MicroXML is a format which can be easily transformed to HTML5"
Then I would be much happier with the differences as they no longer really matter.
But if we claim that you can Author MicroXML and use it as HTML5 ... then the subtlties matter a lot and we may need to be very verbose about "don't do this and that or it doesn't work in browser XYZ" ...





-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
dlee@marklogic.com
Phone: +1 812-482-5223
Cell:  +1 812-630-7622
www.marklogic.com<http://www.marklogic.com/>


From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche@ogbuji.net]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 10:06 PM
To: public-microxml@w3.org
Subject: Re: What to do about newlines in attribute values?

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:28 PM, David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com<mailto:David.Lee@marklogic.com>> wrote:
Uche sayith ..

I think you've really got hold of the wrong idea here.  See above re: the actual ugliness in question.

 -----------


I know I have something wrong, thanks for the comments.

So I was a bit emphatic in what I said, just to be sure you got the point, but the below makes me think you still didn't get the point, and the above seems a reaction to my emphasis.  Oh well.


What led me down this path was John's comment when I asked if you want to author HTML5 why not just author HTML5 and his answer (paraphrased) was "Its Ugly"
But what your saying is that a  MicroXML document can be an HTML5 document "as is".  So its NOT ugly.
Or is it ?
This confuses me.
What is the difference between 2 documents that are byte equal and one is HTML5 and one Is MicroXML ...
I don't see a difference ... if they are byte equal ... thus where is the "Ugly" part coming in if you are "Authoring HTML5" and simply choose to use the simple part ?  Why is MicroXML relevant to this ?
If I say to myself "I am editing a MicroXML document" that is easy and simple
But if I say to myself " I am editing an HTML5 document" that is ugly and complicated.
WTF ?

Once again, the ugliness is not at all in the realm you are thinking of.  John never said all HTML5 documents are ugly.  He did make general reference to the ugliness in HTML5.  I explained to you that this ugliness emerges from the rules required when dealing with examples of HTML5 that are very un-MicroXML like, i.e. what is often called tag soup.  *If you create HTML5 that follows parallel rules to MicroXML's* the ugliness does not come up at all, which is the entire point.

But honestly, I don't see how this side discussion is all that relevant to the pressing question at hand, so that will do from me for now.


--
Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
http://wearekin.org
http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
http://copia.ogbuji.net
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
http://twitter.com/uogbuji