[uf-discuss] ‘XHTML’ references to ‘HTML’
lists at ben-ward.co.uk
Mon Nov 26 07:42:36 PST 2007
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
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?
More information about the microformats-discuss