[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: HTML != XML (was Re: [ANN] Kludgey workarounds for xt)

• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• To: "XML Developers' List" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:28:05 -0400

Andrew Bunner writes:

 >   <stating-the-obvious>Java Script engines are not easy things to
 > write.</stating-the-obvious> I think it's unlikely that developers
 > are going to redefine the Java Script language to interpret &lt; as
 > < ... my opinion (hope) is that the standard should accomodate
 > this.

The problem is that the HTML 4.0 DTD defines the <SCRIPT> element as
follows:

  <!ELEMENT SCRIPT - - CDATA>

This is perfectly legal SGML, and HTML 4.0 is based on SGML.  It would
actually be *wrong* to use &lt; and &amp; in a <SCRIPT> element in
HTML -- the browsers, probably by accident, have it right (at least
this far).

Here's the crux, though: HTML 4.0 is based on a non-XML subset of
SGML.  That means that XML cannot represent (and was never intended to
represent) an HTML <= 4.0 document.  It's just wrong.  If you need to
do that, why bother with XML when there are perfectly good HTML/SGML
tools out there?  

XML is *not* an extension of HTML, and there is no safe way to include
XML in an HTML <= 4.0 page (except by reference, using a <LINK>
element or something similar).


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david@m...
           http://www.megginson.com/

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: HTML != XML
    • From: Toby Speight <tms@a...>

• References:
  • [ANN] Kludgey workarounds for xt
    • From: Andrew Bunner <bunner@m...>
  • Re: [ANN] Kludgey workarounds for xt
    • From: Chris Maden <crism@o...>
  • HTML != XML (was Re: [ANN] Kludgey workarounds for xt)
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: HTML != XML (was Re: [ANN] Kludgey workarounds for xt)
    • From: "Eddie Sheffield" <eddie.sheffield@e...>
  • Re: HTML != XML (was Re: [ANN] Kludgey workarounds for xt)
    • From: Andrew Bunner <bunner@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Namespace Prefix should be Purely Convienience
• Next by Date: Re: Namespace Prefix should be Purely Convienience
• Previous by thread: Re: HTML != XML (was Re: [ANN] Kludgey workarounds for xt)
• Next by thread: Re: HTML != XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread