[whatwg] repetition model

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:49:00 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> The text/html MIME type RFC only allows XHTML that is "compatible" with
> HTML4 to be used. Which basically means XHTML1 Appendix C. None of which
> includes XForms in any way.

yes, what does XHTML have do to with having namespaces in HTML
documents?  text/html also allows anything that is tag soup.

> Also, when asked how text/html should be parsed, the HTML WG replied:
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Sep/0024.html

Which is a response about XHTML, it's not a response about tag-soup
HTML, seen as you're already creating tag-soup HTML with the repeat
etc. elements you're already relying on the liberalness of the
text/html mime-type.  No different to what you're doing with XForms.

> XForms isn't backwards compatible. It doesn't gracefully degrade, for one.

As you've been repeatedly ignoring my comments, neither does the
majority of WF2, even on the bits I've only commented on so far, let
alone the dramatic increase and change of semantics of the action
attribute)

> (Also, XForms has a number of other problems. But that's off-topic for
> this list.)

Maybe if you'd raised them before REC they could've been addressed, if
you did do, then they have, or it wouldn't be a REC, the W3 unlike the
WHATWG have a defined and open process, and good error trackers.

Jim.

Received on Monday, 21 June 2004 15:05:06 UTC