- From: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 17:41:34 -0500
On 12/2/06, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:55:00 +0100, Robert Sayre <sayrer at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 12/2/06, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote: > >> > >> There's probably no way you can serialize that document. > > > > Hmm, Sam's example displayed correctly in Safari, Firefox, Opera, and > > recent WebKit nightlies. > > Yes. Rendering it is different from serializing it though. I agree that it > has to work as it does. What is the benefit of refusing to specify a serialization? > > I'm not sure I see the relation to HTML5. It's not conclusive, but the fact that <http://intertwingly.net/stories/2006/12/02/whatwg.logo> rendered correctly in WebKit nightlies while <http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2006/12/01/The-White-Pebble> regressed (in several different ways depending on the revision) is a sign that the two ways of serving (X)HTML have more in common than the HTML5 specification claims. I don't understand why it's useful to pretend those pages live on separate planets because they have different MIME types. It is already necessary to process XML and HTML5 simultaneously in order to process syndication feeds, and all current browsers do that reasonably well. -- Robert Sayre
Received on Saturday, 2 December 2006 14:41:34 UTC