<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 3/2/2010 6:54 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021051450.20980@ps20323.dreamhostps.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
The handling of processing instructions in the XHTML syntax seems
reasonably well-defined; but it feels a little off in the HTML syntax.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
There's no such thing as processing instructions in text/html.
There was such a thing in HTML4, because of its SGML heritage, though it
was explicitly deprecated.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Doesn't seem deprecated per
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.6">http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.6</a><br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.64.1003021051450.20980@ps20323.dreamhostps.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Briefly it seems that <? causes the parser to go into Bogus comment
state, which is fair enough. (I wouldn't really recommend that anyone
use processing instructions in HTML syntax anyway.) However the parser
comes out of that state at the first >. Because processing instructions
can contain > and terminate only at the two character sequence ?> this
could cause PI processing to terminate early and leave a lot more error
handling and a confused parser state in the text yet to come.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
In HTML4, PIs ended at the first >, not at ?>. "<?target data>" is the
syntax of PIs when the SGML options used by HTML4 are applied.
In any case, the parser in HTML5 is based on what browsers do, which is
also to terminate at the first >. It's unlikely that we can change that,
given backwards-compatibility needs.
There's a simple workaround: don't use PIs in text/html, since they don't
exist in HTML5 at all, and don't send XML as text/html, since XML and HTML
have different syntaxes and aren't compatible.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
In <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/">http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/</a> , it says:<br>
<br>
"HTML5 defines an HTML syntax that is compatible with HTML4 and XHTML1
documents published on the Web, but is not compatible with the more
esoteric SGML features of HTML4, such as <a
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.6">processing
instructions</a> and <a
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.7">shorthand
markup</a>."<br>
<br>
This seems to me to suggest that backward compatibility can be broken
as far as processing instructions (i.e., requiring ?> and not merely
> to close a processing instruction). If not, then it doesn't seem
clear from the specification that processing instructions are indeed
not allowed because the parsing model does allow them, and with
processing instructions being platform-specific by
definition and not apparently explicitly prohibited by HTML5 (unless
that is what you are trying to say here), HTML5
syntax does seem to be compatible with them. But if you are trying to
prohibit them for any use whatsoever yet still technically allow them
to be ignored for compatibility, it seems this would contradict the
statement at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/">http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/</a> that "there is
no longer a need for marking features "deprecated"". Or is the
difference that these are forbidden from doing anything but will be
allowed (and ignored) indefinitely into the future in future versions
of HTML?<br>
<br>
Btw, I've added a talk section at the wiki page
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_vs._XHTML#Harmony">http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Talk:HTML_vs._XHTML#Harmony</a> to suggest
covering XHTML<->HTML compatibility guidelines specifically, so
would appreciate a reply there, so I know whether we can begin edits in
this vein on the page.<br>
<br>
thanks,<br>
Brett<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>