- From: Michel Fortin <michel.fortin@michelf.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:15:55 -0500
Le 30 nov. 2006 ? 16:46, Sam Ruby a ?crit : > On 11/30/06, Michel Fortin <michel.fortin at michelf.com> wrote: > >> We can't really have a document that is both HTML5 and XHTML5 at the >> same time if we keep the <!DOCTYPE HTML> declaration however. > > Why not? It seems I was mistaken about that. I was pretty sure that it'd be a parse error in XML, but I now look at the [DTD construct in the XML spec][1] and I cannot see why. Apparently this is a valid DTD for an XML document where the root element is <html>: <!DOCTYPE html> These wouldn't since XML is case-sensitive: <!DOCTYPE HTML> <!doctype html> [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#dtd So it appears after all that if HTML allows "/>", it would be possible and practical to have a single document which is valid for both HTML and XHTML at the same time. That doesn't mean the document will behave in the same way in the two cases however. I wonder if allowing "/>" in HTML couldn't, on the opposite of some other arguments, help authors and developers to grasp the real difference between the two markups. Currently, "/>" is the signature of XHTML; people have learned that you add "/>" to HTML documents to make them XHTML. If HTML embrace the "/>" syntax, then that misleading hint no longer holds and people will have to learn to differentiate HTML from XHTML using other means (hint: media type!). They wouldn't really need to relearn anything if they don't want to, they'll just take note that "/>" doesn't necessarily mean XHTML anymore and that their valid XHTML1 documents served as text/html, when updated to XHTML5, are now called valid HTML5 documents by the validator. Does this scenario makes any sense? Michel Fortin michel.fortin at michelf.com http://www.michelf.com/
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 18:15:55 UTC