- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 21:36:31 +0300
On Apr 11, 2005, at 19:50, Ian Hickson wrote: > I probably agree with this, but I'm not 100% sure. What about <pre> > blocks around e-mails: > > <pre> > <p>Access via the DOM also affects styling.</p> > > <p>Also, if UAs have to parse it in the old way, what's the point? > It's not increasing the semantics, since the UAs have to parse it > the > old way.</p> > </pre> > > ...or something. Then again, that does look pretty bad. I'm not a big fan of <pre>. In fact, I stay away from it and use <p><code>...</code></p> with no-break spaces for code snippets. For mail archives, I suggest supporting format=flowed, which means <pre> should not be involved. > On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> I see the option are: >> a) Banning XHTML divergence for everyone. >> b) Behaving as if a) was the case and barfing at XHTML that cannot be >> serialized as HTML. >> c) Bending over backwards in order to track whether a given piece of >> data can be serialized as HTML and whether there is a future need for >> a >> given piece of data to be serialized as HTML. >> >> Option a) doesn't seem popular and implementing c) would be a pain, >> which seems to leave b) for those who serialize as HTML. Of course, >> the >> reason why one would want to serialize as HTML is IE (and Lynx). > > Agreed. Is option b acceptable to you? I suppose that realistically it has to be, because enforcing a) doesn't look like a realistic option. :-/ It would help if WHAT WG published a RELAX NG schema for the text/html-compatible subset of the XHTML flavor. That would make appropriate barfing easier. It would also facilitate the implementation of text/html flavor conformance checkers. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Saturday, 7 May 2005 11:36:31 UTC