|
|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 02/06/06 15:41
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006, Andy Dingley wrote:
[you made some points that I respectfully disagree with, but
there seems nothing to be gained by anyone if we get bogged down
in them, so I'll leave them be. But a few points seem to call for
commment.]
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 15:45:43 +0000, "Alan J. Flavell"
> <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Whether you agree with his supporting arguments or not, there's
> >certainly one point where he's got it spot-on. Vast swathes of
> >so-called Appendix-C XHTML are in fact unfit to be called XHTML -
> >they're nothing more than XHTML-ish-flavoured tag-soup -
>
> This is certainly true, but is it any worse than HTML ?
It depends what criteria you take into account. It's certainly no
better than HTML, but I'd say that in a number of respects it's worse.
Bearing in mind that - in a practical sense - HTML served as text/html
has to be parsed by some kind of tag-soup slurper with masses of error
fixup code; whereas we were told (by some, at least) that XHTML was
going to put an end to the need for all that fixup code - just a
simple parser, and predictable rendering routines.
It seems to me inevitable that when the masses do get it into their
heads to switch from text/html to application/xhtml+xml, there's going
to be massive clamouring for all these tag-soup documents to be
rendered "correctly" (in *their* sense of correctly, i.e "looks the
same as what MSIE used to do"), just like the mess that developed with
HTML.
> The more subtle problem, and from where tag soup really arises, is
> with SGML. Clever DTD-based parsing rules are all very well when
> they're done properly, but how often are they?
If you wanted HTML without omitted tags, you could have had it with
SGML all along. If you wanted to eliminate SHORTTAGS, you can do so
in SGML.
I'm not proposing that one should start on that now; I'm just saying
that you shouldn't use problems for which SGML *does have* a solution,
as your basis for saying that SGML is unsuitable.
> This is a problem inherent in the use of optional elements (sometimes),
> or particularly in optional closing tags. In XML they're mandatory, so
> that the document can be correctly parsed into its infoset, even without
> knowing the DTD.
Taking out the parts for which SGML does have a solution, then, your
argument is based just on XML's concept of well-formedness.
> SGML is all very clever, but it's no bloody use ! Real people, in
> suits and ties, just can't work it.
There's certainly far more in SGML than HTML needs.
> Hixie's key point seems to be that premature use of XHTML, done
> badly, will be damaging to XHTML in the long-run.
That's what these detailed arguments boil down to, indeed.
> This is a reasonable view,
Yup
> although I don't believe it myself. I also doubt that Hixie
> believes it either - given his attempts to really throw a clog into
> XHTML with his HTML 5 schism.
I haven't quite worked out how that fits into any picture yet, so I'm
reserving judgment.
> >Then we get into *real* sophistry, for example that HTML purports
> >to be an application of SGML
>
> Does it?
How else would you interpret this, then?
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/conform.html#h-4.1
|| An HTML document is an SGML document that meets the constraints of
|| this specification.
cheers
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|