This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
the introduction says: It is often valuable to be able to serve HTML5 documents that are also valid XML documents. It would be better to say It is often valuable to be able to serve HTML5 documents that are also well formed XML documents. that is "well formed" as opposed to "valid" since most documents conforming to this spec are not valid according to the XML definition of validity. No documents using the preferred doctype <!DOCTYPE html> can be valid, the only ones that can be valid are documents that (a) use an xhtml1 "legacy" doctype, and don't use any new html5 features. A related, but separate issue that has been commented on before is that this document would be clearer (and shorter) if it restricted itself to the additional constraints that need to be followed to get compatible doms from html and xml parsing, given a document assumed to be valid html5 and well formed xml. So requirements like DOCTYPE being uppercase and attribute values being quoted could be dropped as they are implied by the document being well formed.
Introduction now starts: It is often valuable to be able to serve HTML5 documents that are also well formed XML documents. Thanks for catching this. Eliot
mass-move component to LC1