Philippe Verdy, Wed, 28 Nov 2012 04:50:06 +0100: >>> detects a violation of the required >>> extended "prolog" (sorry, the HTML5 document declaration, which is not a >>> valid "document declaration" for XHTML or for HTML4 or before or even for >>> SGML, due to the unspecified schema after the shema short name), it >>> should catch this exception to try another parser. >> >> There is no spec, that I am aware of, that says that it should do that. > > But this is in the scope of the HTML5 whose claimed purpose is to become > compatible with documents encoded in all previous flavors of HTML.
I admit that understanding the meaning behind all the slogans about HTML5, can be be demanding. But the goal has all the time been to create a *single* HTML parser, and not to introduce switching between multiple HTML parsers. If you think otherwise, then my claim is that you have misunderstood. > Otherwise this claim is very weak and HTML5 is just a standard compatible > with itself, Yes, HTML5 is a standard in itself. For instance, the issue of the XML prologue have been mentioned from time to time during the HTML5 process, but a deliberate choice was made to not accept it as part of the syntax. Probably one of the motivations for why the editor made that choice was to help authors to keep HTML and XHTML separate. Also, HTML5 contains some willful violations of other standards. But then, a standard is supposed to set a new standard, hence that should in principle be OK. But it is true that terms such as "Web compatible" and "compatible" in general have been used sloganishly about HTML5. I think, in one way, it was just a method for getting things to move. But it is not so that "compatible" has trumped every other HTML5 design options - other things to consider are for instance that the end result - then final syntax - becomes simple to understand, without too complicated and convoluted rules. Just my two cents, about how I see it. -- leif halvard silli
