On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Edward Z. Yang wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > > In general you should be able to just implement what the spec says and > > then either leave the HTML5 support in (it's unlikely to cause any harm) > > or just comment out the support for the new elements, that should be > > relatively easy. > > Right, this is mostly what I intended to do. But from what I can tell, > there's a difference between the design philosophies of HTML 5 and XHTML > 2.0; XHTML tries to make everything "extensible" and able to be imported > from other places, while HTML 5 attempts to document what exists, and > then make sensible additions as necessary. HTML 5 pragmatism makes sense > for a user-agent, but the XHTML extensibility is useful for a sanitizer, > which doesn't actually have to render anything and needs to support > multiple dialects and variants.
Extensibility certainly isn't a priority for HTML5 in text/html, at least not compared to compatibility, indeed. I don't really see why a sanitiser needs extensibility though. Could you elaborate on this? Surely you just want to filter anything that isn't valid or safe, and only leave the valid safe stuff, using a whitelist. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'