[whatwg] several messages about XML syntax and HTML5
rubys at intertwingly.net
Tue Dec 5 17:17:12 PST 2006
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> 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.
> But that wouldn't help, e.g., Lynx users.
Over a period of years, I would think that a requirement like the one
below could be phased in (presuming that one could be found to work). I
have no expectation that Lynx would ever support a real XHTML mode.
>> 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.
> There are millions of documents that would be "broken" by such a rule,
> so browser vendors couldn't actually deploy that, sadly. :-(
Can you identify three independently produced ones?
BTW, I deeply respect the pushback that you give to everybody who thinks
they want to have a say in the future of HTML.
- Sam Ruby
More information about the whatwg