Re: Support for XHTML5

I've cut down a few things, only to try and move the conversation ahead
piece-by-piece. All will come out in the wash I'm sure...

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

>
> I hate to be pedantic, but then this is standards so we kind of have to.
> The word "support" is too vague, certainly without reference to a
> conformance class. Here are several meanings it could have:
>
>   A) Processors must accept XHTML documents.
>

SHOULD better.


>   B) Documents must use the XHTML syntax.
>

 "must use"? Gosh, of course not. Hard to read what I wrote in toto as
suggesting this.


>   C) SH must be compatible with the ecosystem of tools that consume
> XHTML today.
>
> If the idea is (A), then that's by and large a given. Over HTTP use the
> right media type and you'll be fine; in other contexts make sure your
> XHTML is Appendix-C compliant (which is probably a good idea to start
> with) and you'll be good too, even with processors that expect HTML.
>

 By appendix C you mean "Processing Instructions and the XML Declaration"
[1]? If yes, SH is based on HTML5, not earlier versions? Appendix C less
relevant in that world? But more than that, no, I don't keep to Appendix C.
My goal is to write nice looking XML using the XHTML5 tag set in such a way
that it will be stable as it passes through compliant tools. As in,
constructs such as '<script> </script>' only lead to trouble if you rely on
that specific sequence of characters in an xml environment. That's not to
say anything many of us don't already know, just to offer a concrete
example.

 The above might be a segue to one of your points: that XHTML is a legacy
format. I'm not sure that's right. I am not a W3 insider but I don't know
of any formal declaration that XHTML is legacy. But am I wrong? Obviously,
the conversation changes if there is such a policy in place.

 Certainly the XHTML concrete syntax of HTML 5 (I'll use xhtml5 going
forward for convenience) is deployed by major websites (~"View source" on
Apple's site [2], ).

 xhtml5 is also supported by major browsers. I'm an OS X user and Chrome,
Safari and FireFox are all fine with it for my purposes as far as rendering
is concerned. No doubt there are details of implementation, but that
real-world support is firmly in place.

 There's a risk this exchange will put a burden on me of having to come up
with more  and more examples. I'd like to avoid that so I'll keep to the
earlier point that xhtml5 is part of the W3C ecosystem.

 With that point made (and maybe accepted??)... Robin, there's a sense that
you're telling me my workflow is wrong. Almost, "Change your files. No big
deal." All of the above - particularly the point that xhtml5 is part of the
W3C ecosystem - is part of my response. More practically, in an xml
workflow, practices such as unnecessarily adding closing tags for empty
content tags can lead to real trouble. I've been there, I've lost those
hours. Again '<script href=...></script>'.

 And then more generally, as a group, let's look to be open to the wide
variety of practices that  exist in the real world. I am engaged in "the
interoperable exchange of scholarly articles in a manner that is compatible
with off-the-shelf browsers"[3] and I use xhtml5. Include me. I know that
means recognizing that the word is messy and imperfect, but it is.

 Perhaps all of the above can be seen as a preamble to a specific
suggestion (though, yes, I don't address all your points):

 To the extent that the Vernacular site [3] represents a current state of
the SH standard, I see that it reads in part:

 "The document must be encoded in UTF-8, and transmitted with a media type
of text/html. It must feature a DOCTYPE as its preamble."

 Let's drop the requirement for a text/html media type and point users to
the relevant sections of the HTML 5 standard for guidance on media types,
namespaces, etc.[4]

 How does that sound?

 -Sebastian



[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/guidelines.html#C_1
[2] http://apple.com (I take the presence of the xml namespace, presence of
'/>', and use of 'itemscope' to indicate that this is xhtml5. It'd be nice
if they set the media type. :-)
[3] http://scholarly.vernacular.io
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/introduction.html#html-vs-xhtml (apologies
for repetition, and apologies in advance if I end up linking to that
section a lot.).