[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 deployed in browsers and many html authoring tools, HTML 5 defines a new serialization called html, which looks a lot like the previous known SGML." -- http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/01/html5-is-html-and-xml.html "For compatibility with existing content and prior specifications, this specification describes two authoring formats: one based on XML (referred to as XHTML5), and one using a custom format inspired by SGML" -- http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/ "While the HTML form of HTML5 bears a close resemblance to SGML and XML, it is a separate language with its own parsing rules." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/parsing.html -- David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/> ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
