Re: [ANN] tool for checking HTML compatibility guidelines in XHTML
"Frank Ellermann" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.w3c.validator,gmane.comp.web.html.general |
|---|---|
| Organization | <http://purl.net/xyzzy> |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Shane McCarron wrote: > We do plan on updating XHTML 1.0 to a third edition that > omits appendix C. And its not hearsay if I say it ;-) Okay, maybe it is only a bad plan... ;-) I think I could tell you precisely what a decent HTML 3.2 browser needs to survive, I used a cute "mozilla 3" until a year ago. For the <style> element question, putting the content in <!-- ... --> is not necessary if that element occurs in the <head>, as it should, because HTML 3.2 browsers knew that they have to ignore it *there*. In practice folks sometimes need to put their inline style in the <body>, then no comments cause havoc for old browsers, simple comments cause havoc for XML parsers, and I forgot the details to get it right, I needed this only once. Just an example. Generally, updating RFC 2396 to 3986, RFC 3066 to 4646, etc., might be a good plan, no matter what you precisely do with appendix C. Maybe you could go as far as support empty language tags, getting rid of NMTOKEN. But that is shaky, as the design goal was apparently to emulate HTML 4 as good as possible. Frank