- From: Steven Roussey <sroussey@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 09:46:32 -0700
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
> 0) The problem: Some HTML5 ideologues think that XHTML should only be > produced in documents with the .xhtml file suffix. I suppose I am in that group. It comes down to: does HTML5 == XHTML5. Put me down on the side that if people are writing these docs then they are choosing one or the other intentionally. Now take this, albeit ridiculous, example: all images end in .image including gif, jpeg, png, etc. You can do this now, and many editors will try and figure it out, usually correctly. But no guarantees. This comparison breaks down since data stream inside, if you figure it out, will not possibly match two formats. I'm ignoring that aspect for the moment. The larger question here is: would people really want just one file suffix? Personally, I don't like that xhtml documents have <html> as their root node. I think they should have <xhtml> as their root node, and polyglot *documents* would not exist. I would leave the part of polygot for the inside such that if you want to share a html snippet, or want your site to be easily scraped, or easily imported without further transforms into a feed, etc., that you can choose to do that. However, while HTML5, X-HTML5, and polygot-HTML5 are all semantically HTML5, they are not the "same". Just like PNG and GIF are both images, they are not the "same". As long as XHTML documents have <html> root nodes, confusion will reign for years to come. Perhaps the best thing we can do is suggest file ending for the different serializations: .html .xhtml .phtml Operating systems and editors are already optimized for the case of different file endings / file types. -steve--
Received on Sunday, 23 May 2010 16:47:05 UTC