Re: XMLisms and HTML parsing and modes (was: Re: XML5)
On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 11:44 -0800, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > I had thought it applied to XML tags in general, but it seems not. > > It's a problem that people have that misconception. It's *very* > annoying that XML came up with <foo/> and then people started thinking > that <div/> was an empty element in HTML, too, and keep bugging > developers of HTML consuming software about it. HTML legacy started > accumulating before XML existed, so it's not OK to change stuff just > because XML added something new and XML and HTML look alike. This <syntax /> came from SGML and was already legal in HTML from a formal standards perspective. It's *very* annoying the the... no... I don't think pointing fingers is productive. We have to work with what we have. I don't think going back to the full SGML syntax rules would be a good idea for either dialect. Who was there first isn't a good argument really. The XML empty element syntax was chosen because it was already legal SGML syntax and it worked (at the time) in Web browsers, for elements the Web browsers already knew were declared as empty. Best, Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format