|
|
Posted by Harlan Messinger on 10/25/06 22:13
Andy Dingley wrote:
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>>> You missed the biggie. Appendix C isn't permissible for 1.1 That
>>> means no 1.1 in a current-web compatible manner.
>> Could you explain that more fully?
>
> Appendix C is permitted for 1.0, not for 1.1
Again, I don't know what you mean by Appendix C not being "permitted"
for 1.1, since Appendix C doesn't permit anything, it only gives
compatibility tips. "This appendix is informative. This appendix
summarizes design guidelines for authors who wish their XHTML documents
to render on existing HTML user agents." It makes no exceptions to XHTML
1.0 that XHTML 1.1 has now revoked; all the compatibility suggestions it
makes involve constructions that are legal in *both* versions of XHTML
(except for the one clause about the lang and xml:lang attributes).
As I pointed out in my example, <br /> is fine in both XHTML 1.0 and
XHTML 1.1, because it's fine in XML. Appendix C isn't what makes it
fine, and the absence of Appendix C doesn't make it *not* fine. All
Appendix C does is recommend that you stick the space in front of the
slash to satisfy HTML parsers, and, in another clause, that you not use
an discrete end tag instead for empty elements.
Likewise, Appendix C says, "Don't include more than one isindex element
in the document head. The isindex element is deprecated in favor of the
input element." So what does it mean for Appendix C not to be
"permitted"? You *must* use more than is index element in XHTML 1.1?
Likewise: "Avoid line breaks and multiple white space characters within
attribute values. These are handled inconsistently by user agents." This
is advice, applicable in the context of both versions of XHTML, even
though the later version doesn't mention this piece of advice. It would
be good advice even if Appendix C had excluded it, or if they hadn't
published Appendix C at all. It isn't a rule subject to being maintained
or revoked.
And so on.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|