[whatwg] markup as authored in practice
sayrer at gmail.com
Sat Dec 2 14:41:34 PST 2006
On 12/2/06, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:55:00 +0100, Robert Sayre <sayrer at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/2/06, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote:
> >> There's probably no way you can serialize that document.
> > Hmm, Sam's example displayed correctly in Safari, Firefox, Opera, and
> > recent WebKit nightlies.
> Yes. Rendering it is different from serializing it though. I agree that it
> has to work as it does.
What is the benefit of refusing to specify a serialization?
> I'm not sure I see the relation to HTML5.
It's not conclusive, but the fact that
rendered correctly in WebKit nightlies while
regressed (in several different ways depending on the revision) is a
sign that the two ways of serving (X)HTML have more in common than the
HTML5 specification claims.
I don't understand why it's useful to pretend those pages live on
separate planets because they have different MIME types. It is
already necessary to process XML and HTML5 simultaneously in order to
process syndication feeds, and all current browsers do that reasonably
More information about the whatwg