- From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 14:04:29 +0900
- To: Graham Hannington <graham_hannington@fundi.com.au>
- Cc: "www-validator@w3.org" <www-validator@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <20161227050429.d4gxpnd2t4ijgdpi@sideshowbarker.net>
Graham Hannington <graham_hannington@fundi.com.au>, 2016-12-22 13:01 +0800: > Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/OFDAE003D8.491D84FB-ON48258091.0014B93A-48258091.001BA5F7@LocalDomain> > > I think the answer is yes. The answer is not yes. There are some documents that are conforming when parsed as XML but not when parsed as text/html. A common example is a document that uses self-closing tags for elements that require an end tag when parsed as text/html; for example: <script src="foo.js"/> <- valid when parsed as XML, but not as text/html A similar case in XML is, void elements can have end tags; e.g., <br></br> or even <link rel="stylesheet" href="foo.css"></link> But in text/html those are errors. Another difference is that an XML documents without a doctype is conformant but a text/html document without a doctype is not. Those are just a few of the differences. There are more. > And I'm anticipating someone pointing out how one implicitly, by > definition, follows from the other. Still, I'd be happier to see a > concise, explicit statement to this effect in the HTML Living Standard. The relevant part of the spec explaining that there are important differences between the text/html and XML documents is here: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/introduction.html#html-vs-xhtml If you believe it would help to have the spec say more than about it than that, it would probably be good to raise a PR with some proposed language. ... > I've just seen the following note in section 13.1 of the standard: > > > The XML syntax for HTML was formerly referred to as "XHTML", but this > specification does not use that term (among other reasons, because no such > term is used for the HTML syntaxes of MathML and SVG). > > "XHTML" is oldspeak, huh? ;-) As mentioned in https://github.com/whatwg/html/commit/643d1bce and in that paragraph cited above, we have no corresponding terms like “HSVG” (or something) and “HMathML” to refer to SVG and MathML served in text/html. Another reason that when we refer to “XHTML”, many (maybe most) people still seem to assume we mean XHTML1, not HTML5. Also, some people think “XHTML” can just mean serving a document with quoted attribute values and no omitted end tags, etc., as text/html. So it makes sense to avoid that ambiguity and to instead be very clear that the difference is how the document gets parsed: if it’s parsed with an HTML parser or if it’s parsed with an XML parser. ... > Suppose I have an XHTML document (er, "an HTML document written in the XML > syntax"?) for which v.Nu reports: > > > Using the preset for XHTML... > > The document validates according to the specified schema(s) > > I want to know - without actually checking - that, if I were to use v.Nu to > check the same document as HTML, v.Nu would still report "The document > validates...". You can’t know for certain. It may be an XML instance that has no conditions that are non-conforming in text/html, or it may be one that does. As I mentioned above, probably the simplest case is just a document lacking a doctype. The checker will report no error for that document if it is served as XML, but the checker will report an error if it is served as text/html. ... > Should I be satisfied that the term "XML syntax for HTML" means, > implicitly, that there is a way to express any HTML using XML syntax, and > that the XML syntax will always be conformant HTML? ... No, because as explained above, that’s not true. —Mike -- Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Tuesday, 27 December 2016 05:05:02 UTC