Le 1 déc. 2006 à 11:07, Ian Hickson a écrit :
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Michel Fortin wrote:
I wonder if xml:lang and xmlns couldn't be made legal in HTML.
xml:lang
would simply become conformant in HTML as a synonym for the lang
attribute, it's already in the spec that it should get the correct
treatment anyway.
Except that wouldn't be backwards compatible since xml:lang="" isn't
treated as a language attribute in legacy UAs.
Yes I see. At the time I thought the spec required xml:lang to work
in HTML, because of the way xml:lang is mentioned in the section
about the lang attribute. Now I see it's the "lang" attribute in the
"xml" namespace that would work, not the "xml:lang" attribute HTML
would have.
But I think the reverse could work: xml:lang cannot work in HTML, but
lang (html:lang) do work in XHTML if I'm not mistaken (although it's
non-conforming).
This would make it possible to have documents conformant with both
syntaxes at the same time.
I thought XHTML-sent-as-text/html had explained in painful detail why
that's not a desirable end goal. Why would we want this?
I don't want to send XHTML as text/html. I want to see if it's
possible to have a common subset between HTML and XHTML at the markup
level, so that someone can create a document that is conforming both
with XHTML to HTML.
I'm not sure if this is desirable or not, that's why I was asking for
opinions. I see that it may also be completely irrelevant, but I
don't really know what to think.
This could also help reinforce the idea that it's the media type that
differentiate HTML from XHTML. It'd make many valid XHTML1
documents out
there conformant with HTML5 with a mere modification to the doctype.
Not if they use things like <![CDATA[...]]> or the empty element
syntax on
non-void elements, or any number of other XMLisms.
Well, by "out there" I meant all the XHTML1 documents that are built
for text/html, that validates and which don't use any feature that
both parser can handle. This certainly does not include <![CDATA[...]]>.
Sorry if I wasn't clear; "out there" was certainly misnomer.
What do you think?
I don't think it's a goal for the two serialisations to have a common
subset.
That's fine with me.
Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.michelf.com/
