On 12/2/06, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:55:00 +0100, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/2/06, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> There's probably no way you can serialize that document.
>
> Hmm, Sam's example displayed correctly in Safari, Firefox, Opera, and
> recent WebKit nightlies.
Yes. Rendering it is different from serializing it though. I agree that it
has to work as it does.
What is the benefit of refusing to specify a serialization?
I'm not sure I see the relation to HTML5.
It's not conclusive, but the fact that
<http://intertwingly.net/stories/2006/12/02/whatwg.logo>
rendered correctly in WebKit nightlies while
<http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2006/12/01/The-White-Pebble>
regressed (in several different ways depending on the revision) is a
sign that the two ways of serving (X)HTML have more in common than the
HTML5 specification claims.
I don't understand why it's useful to pretend those pages live on
separate planets because they have different MIME types. It is
already necessary to process XML and HTML5 simultaneously in order to
process syndication feeds, and all current browsers do that reasonably
well.
--
Robert Sayre
