| 08:42 | <Lachy> | hey, I'm working on my presentation (which I'll be presenting on 3 Aug) and I'm trying to list and compare the benefits of using HTML vs. XHTML and explain when each is appropriate. |
| 08:42 | <Lachy> | Any ideas about the benefits and use cases for XHTML? |
| 08:44 | <hsivonen> | Lachy: first, I'm assuming you mean XHTML 1.0: |
| 08:44 | <hsivonen> | Lachy: embedding SVG and MathML |
| 08:44 | <Lachy> | no, XHTML5 |
| 08:44 | <hsivonen> | ooh. |
| 08:45 | <Lachy> | the presentation is called Developing with HTML5 |
| 08:45 | <hsivonen> | well, anyway, embedding SVG and MathML in it |
| 08:45 | <Lachy> | yeah, got that one already (that's the only one I had) |
| 08:45 | <hsivonen> | embedding it into XSLT transformations (for producing HTML5 or XHTML5) |
| 08:45 | <Lachy> | also XSLT, but I'm not sure if that's really a benefit ;-) |
| 08:45 | <Lachy> | I suppose, some people might want to do that |
| 08:46 | <hsivonen> | using the XML representation as the internal representation in non-browser apps |
| 08:46 | <Lachy> | like in a CMS? |
| 08:46 | <hsivonen> | that's not syntax but using streaming or tree representations |
| 08:46 | <hsivonen> | yes |
| 08:47 | <hsivonen> | or in a conformance checker :-) |
| 08:47 | <Lachy> | yeah, but most developers are building a conformance checker |
| 08:47 | <Lachy> | *aren't |
| 08:48 | <hsivonen> | well, any app that wants to do non-browser things with HTML5 and wants to do so in a robust way could use an XML pipeline with an HTML5 parser on input and an HTML5 serializer on output |
| 08:48 | <hsivonen> | which means there's no XML *syntax* involved but the APIs / data models are |
| 08:48 | <Lachy> | I'll see if I can turn that into some kind of flow chart, showing the authoring in (X)HTML, storing as XHTML, and serialising as HTML5 to the client |
| 08:59 | <jgraham> | Yeah, for something like Genshi the XML serialisation will work better |
| 09:00 | <jgraham> | http://genshi.edgewall.org/ (Python templating language that uses SAX-like streams internally and uses a subset of XInclude to process fragments) |
| 09:04 | <hsivonen> | Lachy: after all, all the XML toolchain stuff is pretty cool. it's just that the server-to-browser step doesn't work in IE and the ingestion step to the pipeline is brittle if using a real Draconian XML parser |
| 10:14 | <rabies> | Morgen. |
| 16:53 | <Navarr> | Pardon for the probably very odd question; but what is the point in HTML5 being made if its less strict? Isn't the point of standards to make them more strict to follow a specific set of rules so that browsers read and display them correctly on a universal level? |
| 16:54 | <gavin_> | depends on what you mean by "more strict" |
| 16:54 | <gavin_> | it's important that the UA requirements are completely and consistently defined |
| 16:55 | <gavin_> | the authoring requirements don't need to be "strict" to achieve interoperability |
| 16:56 | <Navarr> | but with the advancing work of XHTML to combine into XML to have further freedom in what a user does, why continue HTML? (these are very basic questions, being asked by a 16 year old interested in the web) |
| 16:56 | <gavin_> | I'm not sure I understand your assertion |
| 16:57 | <Navarr> | well, XHTML 2.0 is being worked on by the W3C, allowing the combination of HTML (written using XML schema?) to combine with other types of XML (SVG, MathML,ect.) why continue HTML? |
| 16:58 | <gavin_> | the goal of the XHTML2.0 working group isn't to "combine HTML with other types of XML", as far as I know |
| 16:59 | <gavin_> | their goal is to rewrite HTML, and they're doing it in a way that is incompatible with the web |
| 16:59 | <Navarr> | ah, i see. |
| 16:59 | <Navarr> | Thank you very much, I'm just kind of curious. |
| 17:01 | <Philip`> | About 99.95% of the web uses HTML instead of XHTML, so work on HTML is more relevant than XHTML for the majority of users and authors |
| 17:03 | <Navarr> | Isn't it also true that most of the web uses wrongly formatted HTML? |
| 17:04 | <gavin_> | yes |
| 17:04 | <Philip`> | http://triin.net/2006/06/12/HTML suggests about 97.5% of pages are invalid |
| 17:04 | <Navarr> | wow. |
| 17:05 | <Navarr> | So, what will effectively be the difference between HTML5 and XHTML2? |
| 17:05 | <Philip`> | There are basic syntax errors on about half of pages, before even looking at whether they're using real HTML elements and using them correctly |
| 17:05 | <gavin_> | http://blog.whatwg.org/faq/ will probably answer a lot of your questions |
| 17:06 | <Navarr> | thank you ^^;;; |
| 17:06 | <gavin_> | though it's perhaps a little bit biased :) |
| 17:07 | <Navarr> | yea |
| 17:07 | <Navarr> | i see it has been worked on to try to make it less biased |
| 17:16 | <Navarr> | thank you for that |
| 22:49 | <annevk> | hmm, 1848 new e-mails |
| 22:49 | <zcorpan> | annevk: wb |
| 22:51 | <annevk> | anything new? |
| 22:53 | <zcorpan> | annevk: i updated http://html5.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/parser-tests/ |