- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:15:16 +0200
- To: Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz>
- CC: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, www-tag@w3.org, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Dean Edridge wrote: > ... > Since Steven Pemberton is the HTML Activity Lead, surely he must have > read the HTML5 spec and known that the XHTML variant of HTML5 was > identified by the mime type and namespace and not by any doctype. There > needs to be some sort of identification so that any (X)HTML5 documents > are not confused with XHTML1.x documents. Up until now it's been fine > since all XHTML1.x specs have used a doctype, now that it's been noticed > that the XHTML variant of HTML5 doesn't use a doctype, another WG > decides to copy that idea and create problems. > ... I *strongly* disagree with this opinion. If the only method to "understand" the meaning of an HTML (or XML) tag is to check the doc type, we are in deep trouble. Many tools never will see the doc type (such as XSLT), and the association will be broken as soon as document fragments are copied into other documents. BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2008 12:16:01 UTC