Le 30 nov. 2006 à 16:46, Sam Ruby a écrit :
On 11/30/06, Michel Fortin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We can't really have a document that is both HTML5 and XHTML5 at the
same time if we keep the <!DOCTYPE HTML> declaration however.
Why not?
It seems I was mistaken about that. I was pretty sure that it'd be a
parse error in XML, but I now look at the [DTD construct in the XML
spec][1] and I cannot see why. Apparently this is a valid DTD for an
XML document where the root element is <html>:
<!DOCTYPE html>
These wouldn't since XML is case-sensitive:
<!DOCTYPE HTML>
<!doctype html>
[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#dtd
So it appears after all that if HTML allows "/>", it would be
possible and practical to have a single document which is valid for
both HTML and XHTML at the same time. That doesn't mean the document
will behave in the same way in the two cases however.
I wonder if allowing "/>" in HTML couldn't, on the opposite of some
other arguments, help authors and developers to grasp the real
difference between the two markups. Currently, "/>" is the signature
of XHTML; people have learned that you add "/>" to HTML documents to
make them XHTML. If HTML embrace the "/>" syntax, then that
misleading hint no longer holds and people will have to learn to
differentiate HTML from XHTML using other means (hint: media type!).
They wouldn't really need to relearn anything if they don't want to,
they'll just take note that "/>" doesn't necessarily mean XHTML
anymore and that their valid XHTML1 documents served as text/html,
when updated to XHTML5, are now called valid HTML5 documents by the
validator.
Does this scenario makes any sense?
Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.michelf.com/
