upvote

points

by wahern2 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby masklinn1 hours ago|
next
[-]
> HTML5 could have taken the extra step of defining a canonical XML or XML-compatible DOM encoding, or at least encouraged it.

Yeah and then we could have called it xhtml5. Too bad that does not exist. Oh wait https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/xhtml.html

> But the anti-XML sentiment was explicit and spiteful.

No, xhtml was just a bad idea creating tons of problems and solving none.

reply
upvoteby kllrnohj1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> xhtml was just a bad idea creating tons of problems and solving none.

Well an XHTML parser (and serializer) is a lot simpler, which is a pretty meaningful problem to solve.

What problems does xhtml create?

reply
upvoteby bazoom421 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> Well an XHTML parser (and serializer) is a lot simpler

Perhaps, but a combined html and xhtml parser is more complex than just a html parser. Since html already is entrenched, xhtml would be in addition to html, not instead of.

reply
upvoteby smallerize1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The main one is that even a slightly broken XHTML document will fail to render. HTML is much more forgiving.
reply
upvoteby JoshTriplett1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
With the benefit of hindsight, if the web had been that way from the beginning, I think we would have been better off. The moment you tested your content in any browser, you'd immediately see if it was broken.

But it wasn't something that could get introduced later, after all the broken content that already existed.

reply
upvoteby ktpsns1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
With all respect - the opposite is true. The web succeeded because HTML and HTTP are easy standards easily writable by humans with text editors. HTML was writable by non-programmers.
reply
upvoteby JoshTriplett1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I don't think "parsed strictly" makes something hard; on the contrary, I think it's helpful to make something easy. Clear feedback, easy to test.

But then, I've always preferred strongly typed over stringly typed.

reply
upvoteby joshuamorton57 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
This imagines HTML as code and not markup.

The reason HTML and markdown are more widely adopted than latex is because the former are more forgiving.

reply
upvoteby JoshTriplett50 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
I am thinking of it as markup. I stand by the point: I think "forgiving" is not a feature in parsing; it's a bug.
reply
upvoteby leoc1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
That's not obviously so. The adoption of JS wasn't particularly hindered by the fact that users have to match their brackets and generally avoid syntax errors.
reply
upvoteby Conan_Kudo1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Yeah, I think SGML HTML as the first pass was a mistake. All my early websites were XHTML until people called them "bad"...
reply
upvoteby jxramos1 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
I'm curious, what exactly in the DOM is not XML-compatible?
reply
upvoteby degamad1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
From long-lost memory, I think it's implicitly closed tags (e.g. img).
reply
upvoteby jdiff44 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
XML can handle implicitly closed tags, they call them "empty" in the spec here:

https://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#sec-starttags

reply