Re: Reinstating XHTML-IM (XEP-0071)

>> The warnings about XML serialization hardly seem relevant
>
>How is "Using the XML syntax is not recommended [...] the XML syntax is
>essentially unmaintained" not relevant?

Because this is about DOM model and scripting engine considerations, etc.  
The syntax itself requires no maintenance because it does not change. The 
warning is about eg creation of a Document object and other such concerns as 
it mentions which are relevant for browsers using the legacy XHTML mime type 
but not to using well formed XML syntax to convey HTML elements.

>> I think encoding something with a XML syntax as text for transmission
>> in an XML native context would be a great tragedy
>
>I was referring to the well-maintained HTML syntax of HTML5, not the
>XML syntex. As HTML syntax is not fully compatible with XML, it can't
>be transferred as XML and thus would need to be transferred as text.

Right. Obviously we want to avoid the HTML syntax which would require an 
HTML parser and is not XML.

>documents, our best bet is probaly just to use HTML5. I would suggest
>using the HTML syntax here, just because that's the one more widely
>supported

Since the common XML syntax is a strict subset of the HTML5 HTML syntax 
(which intentionally supports eg self closing tags) the support level it 
equivalent.
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]