Re: [uf-discuss] ‘XHTML’ references to ‘HTML’
lists at ben-ward.co.uk
Mon Nov 26 08:38:24 PST 2007
On 26 Nov 2007, at 16:02, Brian Suda wrote:
> 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)
I mean that in the context of using the microformats syntax, not of
the HTML itself. In terms that XHTML is a stricter syntax of HTML,
therefore HTML is the lower common denominator than XHTML. You can
use the same microformats syntax within either the liberal parsing
rules of HTML or the strict rules of XHTML.
Referring to HTML in place of ‘HTML or XHTML’ does not imply anything
about a publisher's usage of HTML. If they are using XHTML then they
will understand the addition syntax rules that must be adhered to.
However, referring to XHTML where we mean ‘HTML or XHTML’ implies
that the publisher _must_ adhere to the stricter rules, or implies to
a parser that it can depend on them.
> I agree with the concern. I sat on a presentation where the speaker
> spoke of microformats as if they were xhtml-only. I know the POSH
> concept is there to prevent this confusion, but apparently, it's not
> enough, Is it? Maybe POS(X)H doesn't seem to cut it, does it?
I'm not sure that ‘POSH’ has made anything less confusing to anyone.
As far as communication goes, this is definitely a separate issue.
More information about the microformats-discuss