[whatwg] W3C compatibility

[Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis]

Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> The practical alternative is to follow the definition that makes most  
> sense. And not try to implement both.

Short of telepathy, the definition that makes most sense will be the one
the author was claiming to use. So your practical alternative of
implementing only one is to arbitrarily misrepresent the intended
meaning of documents, albeit in small ways (so far). I just don't think
that's a good precedent to set.

> > * XHTML2 and "XHTML5" have wildly different ways of indicating document
> > structure with headings.
> 
> How so?

They're wildly different in that "XHTML5" uses numbered headings with
sections but alters the implied importance of a heading with its nesting
position, and reuses numbered headings as subtitles; XHTML uses <h> with
<section> /or/ <h1> to <h6> in order. On the other they're incredibly
similar in that both make my head hurt just thinking about them. ;)

> XHTML5 also has a semantic class name "note" for this very purpose which  
> can be used on <aside>, <p> and <span>.

What's the implied difference between <aside> and <aside class="note">?
How might a UA treat them differently?

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis