Elliotte Rusty Harold:
For a long time we not so deliberately did limit the Web
to people who were comfortable hand editing tags. Then
blogs came along, and changed all that. (Wikis too.)
There's an order of magnitude more people publishing
now than there used to be a few years ago, and
I suspect the others you mention are similar.
I don't ever remember using angle brackets
on Blogger, but it's been a while.
Point of note, Typepad has an Allow limited HTML option, no markdown.
-Mike Schinkel
http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/
http://www.welldesignedurls.org/
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
(IE's disastrous XML Data Islands and Custom Tags provide sufficient
evidence of that.)
Why are XML Data Islands disasterous?
http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In that email you wrote:
My point is that the whole idea of embedding
XML in
Mike Schinkel wrote:
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
People who hand edit can handle some simple
well-formedness rules.
I think that is wishful thinking, unless we deliberately want to limit the
number of people who can contribute on the web.
For a long time we not so deliberately did limit
I hope you are not advocating that we shouldn't have considerations for
hand-editing, and I don't see the need for hand editing ever changing.
I hand edit a lot myself, though less than I used to. People who hand
edit can handle some simple well-formedness rules.
Even if people don't
Elliotte Harold wrote:
Even if people don't hand edit entire pages they will hand edit
fragments of
pages such as on wikis and forums and blogs and cms.
Actually, no they don't. Almost every major CMS/Blog/Wiki uses a non
angle bracket input format.
This is nonsense. flickr, blogger,
James Graham wrote:
This is nonsense. flickr, blogger, wordpress and many other popular
systems that allow user-provided content (as opposed to author provided)
all use angle brackets.
WordPress allows angle brackets. However I almost never use them.
Instead I use its markdown format. Most
Mike Schinkel wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
(IE's disastrous XML Data Islands and Custom Tags
provide sufficient evidence of that.)
Why are XML Data Islands disasterous?
http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
People who hand edit can handle some simple
well-formedness rules.
I think that is wishful thinking, unless we deliberately want to limit the
number of people who can contribute on the web.
Almost every major CMS/Blog/Wiki uses a non
angle bracket input
On Dec 2, 2006, at 09:19, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
The best idea so far for how to make it work is for parsers to
automatically recognise the tag names and put them into the correct
namespace.
I think putting subtrees rooted at svg or math in the SVG and
MathML namespaces respectively (and
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
The XHTML serialisation exists to make use of XML-only features, like
xmlns syntax. People wishing to use such features *must* use XML. There
has been no reason whatsoever given for wanting to try and use
unsupported XML-only syntax in HTML, most likely because there is
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I think putting subtrees rooted at svg or math in the SVG and MathML
namespaces respectively (and allowing / to close elements while the
tokenizer is looking at such a subtree) would be more forward-compatible
with future SVG and MathML revisions. (Subtrees rooted at
Elliotte Harold wrote:
James Graham wrote:
Ignoring the _syntax_ for a moment, there have been reasons given for
wanting to use XML _features_ in HTML5 - the desire to embed MathML or
SVG in a HTML document, for example. You suggest punting these use
cases to XHTML5, without addressing the
James Graham wrote:
Well I think you're hugely mistaken. Any model without support for error
recovery is not suitable for hand authoring (and only marginally
suitable for machine authoring).
You mean like almost every programming language ever invented? When's
the last time you saw error
Elliotte Harold wrote:
I don't believe most web documents are hand authored any more. Consider
that essentially every page generated by Blogger, Moveable Type or
WordPress is not hand authored. Almost every page at sites like
Amazon.com or walmart.com is not hand authored. Hand authoring is a
Robert Sayre wrote:
SVG and MathML have a DOM. It wouldn't be that hard to serialize it as
HTML5.
Robert, if you will permit me, I would like to recast that into the form
of a question, jeopardy style.
The question is: what would the HTML5 serialization be for the DOM which
is internally
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:10:49 +0100, Rimantas Liubertas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S. That script, complete with indentation and readable variable
names, is still an order of magnitude smaller than
http://whatwg.org/images/logo
...
And so is this one: http://rimantas.com/bits/whatwg.png
I
On 12/2/06, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's probably no way you can serialize that document.
Hmm, Sam's example displayed correctly in Safari, Firefox, Opera, and
recent WebKit nightlies.
I don't think we need to settle this issue in December 2006, but I do
think there is
On 12/2/06, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/2/06, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's probably no way you can serialize that document.
Hmm, Sam's example displayed correctly in Safari, Firefox, Opera, and
recent WebKit nightlies.
That's wrong. Sam's example
On 12/2/06, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:55:00 +0100, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/2/06, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's probably no way you can serialize that document.
Hmm, Sam's example displayed correctly in Safari,
Shipping Safari has no SVG support. WebKit nightlies do. That's the
only reason the logo now renders correctly in the nightlies so
that particular file is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
dave
On Dec 2, 2006, at 2:41 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 12/2/06, Anne van Kesteren
On 12/2/06, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think we need to settle this issue in December 2006, but I do
think there is ample evidence of interoperable but undocumented
behavior that HTML5 implementors will need to consider.
Does the WHATWG have a process for capturing
On 12/2/06, David Hyatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shipping Safari has no SVG support. WebKit nightlies do. That's the
only reason the logo now renders correctly in the nightlies so
that particular file is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
I'm confused. Which file? And why is it
On Dec 3, 2006, at 00:48, Sam Ruby wrote:
On 12/2/06, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think we need to settle this issue in December 2006, but I do
think there is ample evidence of interoperable but undocumented
behavior that HTML5 implementors will need to consider.
Does the
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:41:34 +0100, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's probably no way you can serialize that document.
Hmm, Sam's example displayed correctly in Safari, Firefox, Opera, and
recent WebKit nightlies.
Yes. Rendering it is different from serializing it though. I agree
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:48:17 +0100, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't think we need to settle this issue in December 2006, but I do
think there is ample evidence of interoperable but undocumented
behavior that HTML5 implementors will need to consider.
Does the WHATWG have a process
On 12/2/06, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the benefit of refusing to specify a serialization?
I didn't refuse anything.
I don't think that is a productive way to have a discussion, but the
issue seems to be more controversial than I expected. Maybe we all
need a little
Elliotte:
I hope you are not advocating that we shouldn't have considerations for
hand-editing, and I don't see the need for hand editing ever changing.
Even if people don't hand edit entire pages they will hand edit fragments of
pages such as on wikis and forums and blogs and cms.
Also, if
On 11/30/06, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd gladly put in a !DOCTYPE html in my page, the question is: would
the WHATWG be willing to meet me half way and allow xmlns attributes in
a very select and carefully prescribed set of locations?
This seems like a bad idea. If you have
29 matches
Mail list logo
