Le 12 déc. 2006 à 09:56, Ian Hickson a écrit :
In HTML5, the above can now be written as:
<!DOCTYPE HTML>
<html>
<head>
<title>Tantek's Thoughts</title>
...which is far easier to write and understand.
agreed. It is even simpler for XHTML 2.0, and you do not need the
DOCTYPE.
One line less. :)
a minimal strictly conforming XHTML 2.0 Document is:
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/"; xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>Tantek's Thoughts</title>
Then in the page there are things like
<ul class="xoxo facets">
<li><a href="http://technorati.com/profile/tantek";
rel="me">Technorati</a></li>
</ul>
rel="me" has a meaning because of the profile up there.
With the new proposal, the above still works, but doesn't require the
profile attribute.
:) wonderful for all people using class="something" in their pages.
For backward compatibility, will it be asked to thousand of people to
fix their class names because it will be interpreted by parsers in
the wrong way?
The disambiguation thing is nice in theory (which is why I wrote a
detailed normative description for how to handle it about a year or
two
ago, in far more detail than HTML4 ever did), but in practice
nobody uses
it and it therefore it doesn't actually disambiguate anything.
because people *can not* do it in most cases. profiles in head
section. As we say in French, you just made a circular reasoning "Le
serpent se mange la queue."
Unfortunately in both cases we don't really have any choice; for
back
compat, <link> and <meta> elements that aren't in the <head> must be
moved to the <head> by the parser.
Then for back compatibility you will have to keep the profile
attribute.
I don't really see why. Nobody uses it. What useful content would
you be
being compatible with?
*nobody* … which is a false statement.
See
4. Using GRDDL with valid XHTML
http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#grddl-xhtml
Parsers are not only browsers parsers.
Removing profile="" makes GRDDL implementations easier and makes
them more
compatible with existing content. How is that not a boon?
I though it was nobody just from above.
Do you have an explanation for the why of
"<link> and <meta> elements that
aren't in the <head> must be moved
to the <head> by the parser."
It's what browsers do... what do you mean?
So what you are saying is that old browsers now put back the link and
meta in the head section. Recovering the tag soup. Though it doesn't
forbid any microformat parsers to analyze the thing in situ in the
tree. And it is still a benefit for the end user.
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
