HTML != XML

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #62,322

11/11/02 10:13:42 PM

11/11/02 10:15:54 PM

HTML != XML

There are too many things about HTML that are already not XML-complient. For example, the "noshade" option in the HR tag requires no "=" value. There is no use in trying to merge them. So let us have real HTML and F the XML push. (I *don't* mind having XML-based HTML be a subset of HTML for those who make generators, I would note. For example, both NOSHADE and NOSHADE="Yes" would be valid HTML.)

________________
oop.ismad.com

Edited by tablizer Nov. 11, 2002, 10:15:54 PM EST

HTML != XML

There are too many things about HTML that are already not XML-complient. For example, the "noshade" option in the HR tag requires no "=" value. There is no use in trying to merge them. So let us have real HTML and F the XML push. (I *don't* mind having XML-based HTML be a subset of HTML for those who make generators, I would note.)

________________
oop.ismad.com

Collapse All History

Post #62,324

11/11/02 10:21:27 PM

But XHTML is XML.

[link|http://www.w3.org/MarkUp|Look at the standard.]

The next version of HTML after 4.01 is XHTML 1.0 which is XML compliant. As Peter said: Deal.

Wade.

"Ah. One of the difficult questions."

P-tag close or not to close battle/rant - (tablizer) - (54) - Nov. 11, 2002, 01:34:35 PM EST

Different standards - (ben_tilly) - Nov. 11, 2002, 01:41:32 PM EST

Stop whining and get over it. - (pwhysall) - (2) - Nov. 11, 2002, 01:51:15 PM EST

HTML != XML - (tablizer) - (1) - Nov. 11, 2002, 10:15:54 PM EST

But XHTML is XML. - (static) - Nov. 11, 2002, 10:21:27 PM EST

The standard wasn't changed in the way you think. - (static) - (49) - Nov. 11, 2002, 10:18:56 PM EST

Pluck it! I like it the old way - (tablizer) - (48) - Nov. 12, 2002, 01:26:19 PM EST

<BR> is the separator. -NT - (admin) - (46) - Nov. 12, 2002, 01:29:07 PM EST

BR just starts a new line, it does not add spacing -NT - (tablizer) - (45) - Nov. 12, 2002, 09:52:09 PM EST

Er... so use two... -NT - (admin) - (44) - Nov. 12, 2002, 09:54:32 PM EST

re: use two - (tablizer) - (43) - Nov. 13, 2002, 04:41:29 PM EST

No space required - view source of your post - (admin) - (42) - Nov. 13, 2002, 04:47:32 PM EST

Perl bashing, eh? - (tablizer) - (41) - Nov. 14, 2002, 02:31:52 AM EST

Well... Yes. - (imric) - Nov. 14, 2002, 07:18:08 AM EST

Er... you should probably know this: - (admin) - (37) - Nov. 14, 2002, 08:31:47 AM EST

Ben's usage patterns are not going to match Larry's 100% -NT - (tablizer) - (36) - Nov. 14, 2002, 01:45:44 PM EST

WTF does that have to do with my point?? - (admin) - (35) - Nov. 14, 2002, 03:13:02 PM EST

Ah, so that is why my ears were burning... - (ben_tilly) - Nov. 15, 2002, 02:19:49 AM EST

"Supposed to" my ess - (tablizer) - (33) - Nov. 15, 2002, 06:58:05 PM EST

O.______M.______G.______ - (tseliot) - (2) - Nov. 15, 2002, 07:40:11 PM EST

If it is your job to mangle the code then by all means do it - (boxley) - Nov. 16, 2002, 11:00:18 AM EST

I meant the HTML spec desingers, not each user -NT - (tablizer) - Nov. 17, 2002, 02:16:45 PM EST

/me falls over. - (pwhysall) - (2) - Nov. 15, 2002, 10:26:08 PM EST

Ha! -NT - (Another Scott) - Nov. 15, 2002, 10:27:31 PM EST

It's Part of the Plan - (deSitter) - Nov. 15, 2002, 11:16:55 PM EST

And there we have the nub of the problem. - (static) - (15) - Nov. 16, 2002, 05:41:45 AM EST

sorry I agree with bryce here - (boxley) - (14) - Nov. 16, 2002, 10:57:42 AM EST

Then use breaks - (Andrew Grygus) - Nov. 16, 2002, 11:23:16 AM EST

There's nothing to agree with. - (pwhysall) - Nov. 16, 2002, 11:12:28 AM EST

That's not what I was saying. - (static) - (11) - Nov. 17, 2002, 05:01:50 AM EST

Officially Optional - (tablizer) - (10) - Nov. 17, 2002, 02:33:12 PM EST

Probably because . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (5) - Nov. 17, 2002, 03:58:53 PM EST

Re: Probably because . . - (pwhysall) - (4) - Nov. 17, 2002, 04:06:23 PM EST

That's the standard cop out . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (3) - Nov. 17, 2002, 04:40:07 PM EST

Your browser is Ronald Reagan - (kmself) - (2) - Nov. 17, 2002, 05:26:16 PM EST

I understand the principle and do not argue with it . . - (Andrew Grygus) - Nov. 17, 2002, 06:08:57 PM EST

Re: Your browser is Ronald Reagan - (deSitter) - Nov. 18, 2002, 01:56:47 AM EST

I thought we'd reached an and to this discussion? - (static) - (3) - Nov. 17, 2002, 07:34:03 PM EST

Feed the people, not the parser - (tablizer) - (2) - Nov. 18, 2002, 12:52:24 AM EST

The SEP field is reaching astronomical proportions. -NT - (tseliot) - (1) - Nov. 18, 2002, 11:04:01 AM EST

Did you want the 5 minute or the 10 minute argument? :-) -NT - (static) - Nov. 18, 2002, 10:26:49 PM EST

Link to my "personal opinion": - (admin) - (10) - Nov. 16, 2002, 11:23:41 AM EST

BAH>>> You throw water on.... - (folkert) - (2) - Nov. 16, 2002, 12:09:48 PM EST

The problem he has with this is, you see . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Nov. 16, 2002, 12:18:16 PM EST

Now that you mention it... - (folkert) - Nov. 16, 2002, 01:18:39 PM EST

re: Link to my "personal opinion": - (tablizer) - (6) - Nov. 17, 2002, 02:49:56 PM EST

Ewe THOUGHT WRONG -NT - (folkert) - (1) - Nov. 17, 2002, 03:00:27 PM EST

Let's not drag the poor sheep into this -NT - (wharris2) - Nov. 17, 2002, 07:14:53 PM EST

re: Link to my "personal opinion": - (admin) - (3) - Nov. 17, 2002, 05:22:51 PM EST

container or not, the end P tag is optional in spec -NT - (tablizer) - (2) - Nov. 17, 2002, 05:47:17 PM EST

Was optional -NT - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Nov. 17, 2002, 06:10:03 PM EST

Was sane -NT - (tablizer) - Nov. 21, 2002, 09:13:45 PM EST

HTML bashing, eh? - (tseliot) - (1) - Nov. 14, 2002, 11:34:22 AM EST

hmmm. objective comfort - (tablizer) - Nov. 14, 2002, 01:44:40 PM EST

Tough. Real word usage is wrong and they said so. -NT - (static) - Nov. 12, 2002, 10:28:01 PM EST

Are you scared yet?
292 ms