- From: Charles Iliya Krempeaux <supercanadian@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:31:50 -0800
Hello Ian, On 12/1/06, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Michel Fortin wrote: > > > > I wonder if xml:lang and xmlns couldn't be made legal in HTML. xml:lang > > would simply become conformant in HTML as a synonym for the lang > > attribute, it's already in the spec that it should get the correct > > treatment anyway. > > Except that wouldn't be backwards compatible since xml:lang="" isn't > treated as a language attribute in legacy UAs. > > > > This would make it possible to have documents conformant with both > > syntaxes at the same time. > > I thought XHTML-sent-as-text/html had explained in painful detail why > that's not a desirable end goal. Why would we want this? Do you have some links to that discussion. I think I may have missed it. (I know I probably don't qualify as a "typical" web developer, but... I've actually been writing XHTML and returning it as "text/html".) See ya > This could also help reinforce the idea that it's the media type that > > differentiate HTML from XHTML. It'd make many valid XHTML1 documents out > > there conformant with HTML5 with a mere modification to the doctype. > > Not if they use things like <![CDATA[...]]> or the empty element syntax on > non-void elements, or any number of other XMLisms. > > > > What do you think? > > I don't think it's a goal for the two serialisations to have a common > subset. > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' > -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20061201/9260b1ce/attachment.htm>
Received on Friday, 1 December 2006 09:31:50 UTC