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

[Brian Suda]

2007/11/26, Ben Ward <lists at ben-ward.co.uk>:
> 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'm not sure HTML does imply compatibility with XHTML. HTML you
can be sloppy and not close tags, that is not XHTML compatible. Then
HTML5 is not following the SGML rules, so somethings in HTML5 will NOT
be valid XHTML no matter how you slice it. (but that is off topic for
this thread)

> Does this seem worthwhile?

--- i do agreed that we should somehow stress that microformats are
design for HTML4 and up, this will include HTML5, XHTML, et al. Even
microformats embedded in RSS feeds.

So anything to clarify the wiki that this is NOT an XHTML only
technology is a good idea.

How should we proceed? maybe list a few example changes here, discuss
the rewording, Then start editing the wiki, when we have some
consensus?

-brian

-- 
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk