- From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:12:13 +0000
- To: XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
Sorry, I should have CCed the XHTML WG list when I sent this originally. Please CC www-validator on responses, thanks. Begin forwarded message: > Resent-From: www-validator@w3.org > From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk> > Date: 17 March 2008 20:23:07 GMT > To: www-validator@w3.org > Subject: Re: XHTML Family Documents and Media Types > > > > On 17 Mar 2008, at 20:06, Mark Birbeck wrote: >> XHTML 1.0 was incredibly important for HTML because it told people >> how >> to generate XML documents that could be rendered in web browsers. In >> other words, the world of XML tools could be used to generate >> documents, and yet those documents could still be read in standard >> browsers. > > Transforming XHTML to HTML with XSLT is trivial. If the document > isn't being processed as XML, then what's the benefit of using > XHTML over HTML? It just means that HTML parsers are effectively > forbidden from implementing <foo /> according to HTML 4.01. > >> But why insist that browsers must interpret those documents as XML? >> For example, sending a non-well formed XHTML document to Firefox >> means >> you get a blank page with lots of hyphens and a caret...what use is >> that to anyone? And worse, it goes against the whole history of HTML, >> where attempts are made to render documents that have errors in. > > Good reasons to either > > (a) Have good tools that won't let you produce pages with such > errors in them > > or > > (b) Use HTML > >> Of course, the HTML 5 route, of trying to recover from every error is >> in my view, just as bizarre, > > If throwing an error message when the document is not well formed > is of no use to anyone, and recovering from every well formedness > error is bizarre, what does that leave? > >> but that doesn't really matter. The key >> point is that there should be nothing wrong with creating a document >> using XML tools, and then delivering that document to an HTML >> rendering engine and seeing something useful. > > Works for me. I process various bits of data, some in a database, > some in static files, some from URIs on the web, process them with > XML tools and output various things - mostly HTML 4.01 Strict and > ATOM+XHTML. > >> That's what most of the world is doing, after all. > > Most of the world is throwing tag soup about with graphical HTML > generators and string substitution. XML tools aren't involved all > that often. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 21:13:08 UTC