On 07/07/2009, at 7:37 AM, Remember the dot wrote: > Okay, first thoughts: > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Aryeh Gregor > <simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com<simetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com> >> wrote: > >> It's clear at this point that HTML 5 will be the next version of >> HTML. >> It was obvious for a long time that XHTML was going nowhere, but now >> it's official: the XHTML working group has been disbanded and work on >> all non-HTML 5 variants of HTML has ceased. (Source: >> <http://www.w3.org/2009/06/xhtml-faq.html>) > > > That page clearly says that there will be an XHTML 5. XHTML is not > going > away. > > * We can use HTML 5 form attributes. These will enhance the >> experience of users of appropriate browsers, and do nothing for >> others. At least Opera 9.6x already supports almost all HTML 5 form >> attributes. (Source: >> <http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/presto211/forms/>) We could, for >> instance, give required fields the "required" attribute, which will >> cause the browser to prevent the form submission and notify the user >> if they aren't filled in, without needing either JavaScript or a >> server-side check. > > What's to prevent a malicious user from manually posting an invalid > submission? If there are no server-side checks, will the servers > crash?
... Or from using a browser that doesn't support them. We're obviously not going to be removing server-side checks in favour of client-side checks, that's stupid. We're adding client-side checks to enhance usability. >> 2) Once this goes live, if no problems arise, try causing an XML >> well-formedness error. For instance, remove the quote marks around >> one attribute of an element that's included in every page. I suggest >> this as a separate step because I suspect there are some bot >> operators >> who are doing screen-scraping using XML libraries, so it would be a >> good idea to assess how feasible it is at the present time to stop >> being well-formed. In the long run, of course, those bot operators >> should switch to using the API. If we receive enough complaints once >> this goes live, we can revert it and continue to ship HTML 5 that's >> also well-formed XML, for the time being. > > > Why be cruel to our bot operators? XHTML is simpler and more > consistent than > tag soup HTML, and it's a lot easier to find a good XML parser than > a good > HTML parser. They should be using the API. > So, while I see some benefit to switching to HTML 5, I'd prefer to > use XHTML > 5 instead. You've given one benefit of XHTML5, which is negated by the fact that we provide the API for a consistent machine-readable interface, and the benefits to HTML5 that Aryeh has outlined. What other advantages are there? -- Andrew Garrett Contract Developer, Wikimedia Foundation agarr...@wikimedia.org http://werdn.us _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
