Le 16 avr. 08 à 12:16, Henri Sivonen a écrit : > On Apr 16, 2008, at 12:58, Paul Libbrecht wrote: >>> In fact, the reason why the proportion of Web pages that get >>> parsed as XML is negligible is that the XML approach totally >>> failed to plug into the existing text/html network effects[...] >> >> My hypothesis here is that this problem is mostly a parsing >> problem and not a model problem. HTML5 mixes the two. > > For backwards compatibility in scripted browser environments, the > HTML DOM can't behave exactly like the XHTML5 DOM. For non-scripted > non-browser environments, using an XML data model (XML DOM, XOM, > JDOM, dom4j, SAX, ElementTree, lxml, etc., etc.) works fine. I don't know how big the holy name of backwards compatibility is but that should be quantified instead of quantifying the amount of URLs in each serialization mime-type! You seem to be speaking of XHTML5 DOM... maybe I have missed something in the mail torrent about that. I was talking XHTML3 vs HTML5. The point you make above about backwards compatibility seems to say that HTML5's DOM is not the same as HTML4's DOM (or their implementations) and, I feel, this sounds ok if the backwards compatibility break is not too big, therefore the request to quantify. The question remains: can't all the enhancements to HTML model done by HTML5 be done within an XML model decoupled from parsing? paul
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 10:31:04 UTC