[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you say that HTML5 will not be valid SGML?
I didn't. I said it wouldn't be SGML. The syntax might (I haven't looked
closely enough at it to determine) be valid within the rules of SGML. I
don't think it can be parsed as SGML though.
Because SGML has never been
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of David Dorward
Sent: 26 November 2008 11:07
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you say that HTML5 will not be valid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now I am even more confused!
I was always under the impression that HTML4 and lower were valid SGML.
That XHTML1 and up were valid XML
That XML was valid SGML
So how the ??? does that leave us with either 'serialisation' of the new
language being in-compatible
http://immike.net/blog/2008/02/06/xhtml-2-vs-html-5/
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:55 PM, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now I am even more confused!
I was always under the impression that HTML4 and lower were valid SGML.
That XHTML1 and up were valid XML
The HTML working group is working on HTML5 which will have two
serialisations.
A tag soup (and emphatically not SGML) serialisation
and an XML serialisation (which they are referring to as XHTML5).
Why do you say that HTML5 will not be valid SGML?
Mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps I have missed something important: are we saying that HTML5 is
essentially two different languages?
HTML5 is Everything you need to know to build a browser with some
definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in it.
I thought that it was supposed to unify
From what I have read so far, you are pretty much agreeing with me. Hence,
David, you said and I quote, HTML 5 is Everything you need to know to
build a browser with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in
it., therefore, HTML5 (not to be confused with xHTML or XHTML), is being
phased
Sorry, forgot to add, that the purpose of XHTML, from what some of the top
designers and working group members have stated, I may have misinterpreted,
but XHTML was built to help designers/developers transition from HTML to
XML.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Brett Patterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brett Patterson wrote:
From what I have read so far, you are pretty much agreeing with me.
It depends on how you define language.
Hence, David, you said and I quote, HTML 5 is Everything you need to
know to build a browser with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL
and HTTP in it.,
David Hucklesby wrote:
The validator still needs a DTD though.
If you mean the W3C validator, then no, it just got experimental HTML5
support.
--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
***
List Guidelines:
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
David Hucklesby wrote:
The validator still needs a DTD though.
If you mean the W3C validator, then no, it just got experimental
HTML5 support.
And the W3C validator misinterprets XHTML5 to be some lesser XHTML
flavor...
On Nov 25, 2008, at 8:43 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Of course, only HTML can be widely used, as long as XHTML isn't
supported by the most used browser.
I'm going to risk venturing an opinion here.
The high hopes that many of us may have had for XHTML as the wave of
the future seem, sadly,
* Given that XHTML is not going to be supported by IE in the immediate
future, if ever, serving XHTML strict
* as text/html seems a little quixotic. If your document can't be
served as application/xhtml+xml then what's the point?
There is also another reason to use XHTML instead
Andrew Maben wrote:
XML is not going away, so by all means hope for an XHTM revival
somewhere down the road, but for now, if it's text/html then
shouldn't it be HTML as HTML, and not XHTML treated as HTML?
IMHO, naturally, and of course YMMV.
Of course. We have choices and preferences :-)
Kepler Gelotte wrote:
There is also another reason to use XHTML instead of HTML and it does
not involve browsers. When representing your code (xHTML) as XML, it can
also be viewed as data. A perfect example of this is screen scrapers
which read your web pages to pull specific content out of
Kepler Gelotte wrote:
Ø as text/html seems a little quixotic. If your document can't be
served as application/xhtml+xml then what's the point?
There is also another reason to use XHTML instead of HTML and it does
not involve browsers. When representing your code (xHTML) as XML, it can
From the few recent posts, I have become so far confused, as anyone would as
to why, Gunlaug, you keep stating xHTML5 or as above you say XHTML5? HTML
and xHTML/XHTML are different. xHTML is XHTML, albeit 1.0 or 1.1 or 2.0 etc.
So, is it a typo?
--
Brett P.
Brett Patterson wrote:
From the few recent posts, I have become so far confused, as anyone
would as to why, Gunlaug, you keep stating xHTML5 or as above you say
XHTML5? HTML and xHTML/XHTML are different. xHTML is XHTML, albeit 1.0
or 1.1 or 2.0 etc. So, is it a typo?
The HTML working group
Brett Patterson wrote:
From the few recent posts, I have become so far confused, as anyone
would as to why, Gunlaug, you keep stating xHTML5 or as above you say
XHTML5? HTML and xHTML/XHTML are different. xHTML is XHTML, albeit
1.0 or 1.1 or 2.0 etc. So, is it a typo?
No typo, but I
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Rimantas Liubertas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I made the same decision. I still follow HTML and XHTML, but anything I do
(and have a choice about) is always HTML 4.01 Strict. I think it makes more
sense than XHTML 1.0 Strict at this point since we can't really
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:36:52 +0200, Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
I made the same decision. I still follow HTML and XHTML, but anything I do
(and have
a choice about) is always HTML 4.01 Strict. I think it makes more sense than
XHTML
1.0 Strict at this point since we can't really use real XHTML
FWIW - You can use the HTML 5 DOCTYPE today. Browsers only use the DOCTYPE
for standards / quirks mode switching, and all browsers switch to strict
with this, I believe:
!DOCTYPE html
The validator still needs a DTD though.
There is a validator for HTML5: http://html5.validator.nu/
Christian Montoya wrote:
Interestingly enough, though, I had to use Facebook Connect on a
recent project, and in order to use it you have to use XHTML 1.0
Strict with Facebook's xmlns:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd;
I have, rather unfortunately, entered into an argument with a couple
colleagues about the future of HTML/XHTML/XML. So, I was wondering, based on
everyone's expertise level here who is right.
I say that in the years coming, maybe 20 years from now, who knows, but
eventually HTML and XHTML will be
Brett Patterson wrote:
I say that in the years coming, maybe 20 years from now, who knows, but
eventually HTML and XHTML will be replaced by XML.
The other two say differently, more along the lines that they will never
do away with HTML or XHTML.
So...that being said who is right?
...
I say that in the years coming, maybe 20 years from now, who knows, but
eventually HTML and XHTML will be replaced by XML.
XHTML _is_ XML
The other two say differently, more along the lines that they will never do
away with HTML or XHTML.
Even if HTML will be replaced by something it
Christian Montoya wrote:
You'll have telepathic computer displays before _real_ XHTML replaces HTML.
link rel=stylesheet type=text/css media=mind href=...
Ha! Nice one.
A while back, I stopped using XHTML strict and switched to HTML 4.01
strict DTD's.
Personally, I think HTML 4.01 strict
Micky Hulse wrote:
Christian Montoya wrote:
You'll have telepathic computer displays before _real_ XHTML replaces
HTML.
link rel=stylesheet type=text/css media=mind href=...
Ha! Nice one.
A while back, I stopped using XHTML strict and switched to HTML 4.01
strict DTD's.
Personally, I
I made the same decision. I still follow HTML and XHTML, but anything I do
(and have a choice about) is always HTML 4.01 Strict. I think it makes more
sense than XHTML 1.0 Strict at this point since we can't really use real
XHTML yet. It seems to defeat the purpose if you are using a Strict
To follow up on Micky, Christian and Rimantas, here's the latest info on
HTML 5:
HTML 5 Draft Recommendation — 20 November 2008:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/
The Web Developer's Guide to HTML 5 - W3C Editor's Draft 19 November 2008
(written by my colleague,
Frank Palinkas wrote:
To follow up on Micky, Christian and Rimantas, here's the latest info on
HTML 5:
Thanks for those links! :)
Cheers,
Micky
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe:
31 matches
Mail list logo
