[whatwg] Allow trailing slash in always-empty HTML5 elements?
mikeschinkel at gmail.com
Mon Dec 4 03:14:28 PST 2006
Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> At this point, it is important to realize that
>> pro-XHTML advocacy
Who are the pro-XHTML advocates; those one who want divergence, or those who
want HTML5 to interoperate with XHTML as much as possible?
>> This reasoning is then applied to XHTML
>> served as text/html. This is logical and
>> intellectually honest if and only if
>> XHTML_all equals XHTML_compatible.
That is too abstract for me to follow.
>> I'll name the difference of XHTML_all and
>> XHTML_compatible as XHTML_incompatible.
>> Lachlan gave examples that indicate that
>> XHTML_incompatible is not empty.
I'm sorry but may I please ask for a reference? I unfortunately don't know
where to find that needle in the haystack. Or did you mean Ian Hickson?:
>> Now if you wish to serve your documents
>> as text/html, it follows that you can't just
>> happily do things that guarantee that your
>> documents are members of XHTML_all.
Which, point of note, wasn't the proposal (at least not mine.)
>> Instead, you have to *make an effort* to
>> make sure that your documents fall into
That's fair and reasonable to require.
>> The equality of XHTML_all and
>> XHTML_compatible is not true--it is
>> political obfuscation to hide an
>> inconvenient truth.
I'm certainly not trying to obfuscate.
>> If your documents fell into
>> XHTML_incompatible, things would
>> *break*, which would be *bad*.
I'm not sure that I agree with the assertion that it would be bad (or that
it would be worse than the alternative currently proposed.)
>> This means that you lose any benefits
>> that hinge on you only having to
>> ensure targeting XHTML_all.
That is a sweeping statement that minimally discounts the significant
benefit of having less for people to learn. That benefit is so huge it can't
even be easily calculated.
>> unless you specifically want to participate in
>> upholding a political appearance that doesn't
>> match the technical reality and in doing so
>> confuse newbies into believing that the political
>> obfuscation is the truth (which leads them to
>> waste time on finding out the truth the hard way).
>From where I sit the only reason it would be untrue is because of a
contigent trying to make it untrue and not willing to steer HTML5 in a
direction more compatible with XHTML.
>> My values involve acknowledging legacy realities, wanting ability to use
XML tools with conforming HTML5 documents after a lossless conversion and
eschewing political obfuscation of technical realities.
I'm in 100% agreement with those, which means that there must be further
hidden values where he differ, possible unconscious values even. Or maybe
it is because you don't value things I value including minimizing the need
to choose one or the other that doesn't allow later change, minimizing the
need to learn differences, and empowering as many people as possible to
>> What was sold to you was XHTML_all. Not that
>> you you have to know how to avoid
Not exactly. I was sold on having one direction, not two.
More information about the whatwg