[uf-discuss] ‘XHTML’ references to ‘HTML’

[Ben Ward]

Since microformats are published in both HTML and XHTML, I think we  
need to tidy up our references on the Wiki. Again this week we've had  
an — admittedly premature — suggestion of new syntax which is XHTML  
only (<a />). That proposal has a few problems as have been  
discussed, but I think we should fix the Wiki to not give the wrong  
impression about our use of XHTML in the first place.

This is not about ‘XHTML vs. HTML’. I don't care which you prefer to  
use.

This is about making clear that microformats are an HTML technology,  
not an exclusively XHTML technology. ‘HTML’ implies compatibility  
with XHTML, ‘XHTML’ does not imply compatibility with HTML.

I'd like us to update the wiki to make all references to ‘XHTML’ and  
‘X/HTML’ or ‘(X)HTML’ into clear ‘HTML’. Again, ‘HTML’ implies  
‘XHTML’, so there's no need to use clumsy amalgamations in regular  
text. The first mention of HTML on the Wiki front-page should be  
updated to make clear that ‘When we say HTML we refer to both HTML  
and XHTML syntaxes’. For all intents and purposes in microformat  
development and publication, there is no difference.

Does this seem worthwhile?

Ben