[whatwg] HTML5 Parsing spec first draft ready

[Ian Hickson]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2006, at 03:20, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > > 
> > > Off the top of my head, the changes from the HTML parsing output 
> > > involve (besides lowercasing names and putting elements in the XHTML 
> > > 1.x namespace) getting rid of the meta element conveying character 
> > > encoding information,
> > 
> > Why? It doesn't need to be removed, it just has no semantics in XHTML.
> 
> The spec says that it may be used that way only in HTML. Therefore, an 
> algorithm that maps conforming HTML5 to conforming XHTML5 must remove it 
> in order to keep the result conforming.

Yes, you're right.


> > > mapping the lang attribute to xml:lang
> > 
> > "lang" is still valid in XHTML.
> 
> Not according to the spec. It says "lang (HTML only) and xml:lang (XML 
> only)". (I like it the way it is with only one language attribute on 
> each side.)

Yeah, also right.


> BTW, the spec also says: "If both the xml:lang attribute and the lang 
> attribute are set, user agents must use the xml:lang attribute, and the 
> lang attribute must be ignored for the purposes of determining the 
> element's language."
> 
> Shouldn't lang take precedence in HTML?

Apparently not based on existing implementations.


On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> 
> Because lang in no namespace is what is normal for HTML. However, since 
> Anne said UAs have already implemented xml:lang taking precedence, I 
> guess it is best to go with what is implemented.

Well, xml:lang is what is normal for XML, so why make lang="" beat it...?


On Sat, 11 Mar 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 
> I'd be opposed to that. At least two UAs have implemented the opposite. 
> ("xml:lang" taking precedence over "lang".)

That's a convincing argument...

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'