[whatwg] Wasn't there going to be a strict spec?

[Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu]

(12/08/11 8:41), Erik Reppen wrote:
> Thanks Hugh. I had mistakenly been thinking of XHTML5 as something that
> never happened rather than merely HTML5 served as XML which hadn't really
> occurred to me as being a viable option. I look forward to messing with
> this. This is precisely what I wanted to be able to do.

Yep. I would encourage you to play with XHTML5 (application/xhtml+xml)
more and report bugs to browsers. When I still had interest in
application/xhtml+xml (back in 2007?), I got troubled by all the
differences in the DOM APIs. I think currently most JS framework
probably doesn't support XHTML5.

After playing XHTML5, if you still think browsers should implement yet
another mode, you should probably say why XHTML5 is bad and why you
don't just use it.

If you have proposals for how some of the DOM APIs in XHTML5 should
work, you might want to follow the instruction on the top of relevant
specs (DOM Parsing and Serialization[1] basically) and send feedback.


[1] http://html5.org/specs/dom-parsing.html



Cheers,
Kenny
-- 
Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing
Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/