Hello Ian, On 12/1/06, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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. > 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?
Do you have some links to that discussion. I think I may have missed it. (I know I probably don't qualify as a "typical" web developer, but... I've actually been writing XHTML and returning it as "text/html".) See ya
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. > What do you think? I don't think it's a goal for the two serialisations to have a common subset. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
-- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
