[whatwg] several messages about XML syntax and HTML5
rubys at intertwingly.net
Tue Dec 5 17:03:49 PST 2006
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> It also doesn't work that well. I'd be interested to see what happened
>> in IE if the SVG used the SVG 1.2 <textArea> feature. Or if it used the
>> SVG <text> and <tSpan> features.
> Case in point:
> In IE, there's some stray "XHTML HTML" and "XHTML HTML XML" text. This
> isn't acceptable to most people. It certainly isn't something that it
> would make sense to encourage. The worst possible outcome here would be
> for browsers like IE to start trying to parse this "SVG" in text/html,
> because the lack of any sensible parsing rules for it would guarentee that
> we're faced with even more "tag soup", thus undoing all the work that the
> HTML5 spec is trying to do to get us past that.
You are aware that I like to "tweak" IE users, right?
With the current technology, this could have been avoided with a single
div and two lines of CSS. And I am most capable of doing that.
In the longer run, I do believe that an architected simple rule like:
xmlns attributes are invalid on HTML elements except html, and
when found on unrecognized attributes imply style="display:none"
unless you recognize the value of this attribute.
... would channel those with insane desires to make extensions into
doing so in a manner that is harmless. Such a rule might take a year or
two to get widely deployed, but the worst feet-draggers won't be
affected any worse than they were in the days when <table> was young.
- Sam Ruby
More information about the whatwg