Great analyse ! Thanks to you, it gives me weapons to win the battle
against pro-HTML5 in my company ;-))
Seriously speaking, I can not understand why HTML5 is not a well-formed
XML document... there is nothing (AFAIK) in the language that could not
respect the XML constraints, so why not force the well-formess ?
Le 05/12/2012 03:56, Murray Altheim a écrit :
> On 2012-12-04 18:41, Stephen W. Adcock wrote:
>> I am trying to create files that are both valid html5 and valid xml,
>> but cannot find a combination of output options that will create such
>> a thing. The problem arises with minimised tags.
>> For example, when I specify <xsl:output method="html" version="5.0"
>> …, Saxon creates output such as <meta charset="utf-8"> (i.e. no
>> self-closing "/"), which is valid html5, but invalid xml. If I
>> xml as my output method, then Saxon minimises all empty elements, for
>> (The html validation error is "Self-closing syntax (/>) used on a
>> non-VOID html element. Ignoring the slash and treating as a start
>> Is there any way to output this mix of minimised and non-minimised
> Hi Stephen,
> I believe the short answer is actually 'no', mostly because there
> is no definition of "valid" in HTML 5 that is actually XML valid,
> nor will there be a reasonable possibility of a stable answer to
> that question until at least 2014, if ever. That'd be fourteen
> years after XHTML 1.0 and there's little reason to be optimistic
> about even that date. At some point maybe they should give up and
> go home. It would have made a hell of a lot more sense to specify
> an abstract web application and several serialisation syntaxes, but
> they did it backwards, following the convention of previous versions.
> So I think you'll have to decide whether you want conformant XML or
> some "polyglot" non-SGML/XML markup. HTML 5 is I'm sorry to say a
> complete eyesore (and I do speak with some authority on the matter
> as a previous member of the W3C HTML WG), as anyone who has tried
> to follow the progress of the WG for the past decade or so can
> hardly be surprised at the complete mess that the W3C and the WHATWG
> have collectively made of the entire HTML specification process,
> only topped by the mess that is CSS.
> Looking at the HTML 5 Editor's Draft I can only express my complete
> shock and horror. It's not even a specification; it's a manifesto
> combined with a tutorial combined with more non-normative content
> than a Naked Lunch. HTML 5's definition of "valid" is itself
> invalid (see the section 2.2.1 Conformance classes, ugh). It's
> XHTML section begins with:
> This specification does not define any syntax-level requirements
> beyond those defined for XML proper.
> XML documents may contain a DOCTYPE if desired, but this is not
> required to conform to this specification. This specification
> does not define a public or system identifier, nor provide a
> formal DTD.
> Duh. They gave up.
> The application features in HTML 5 (which I assume were demanded
> by some combination of users, industry, and Beelzebub) could have
> been incorporated into a proper XML application, but sadly that's
> not what's happened. So now we're stuck with the kind of confusion
> you're dealing with, also evident in
> which simply wouldn't have been the case had the W3C put its foot
> down and excluded all the jiggery-pokery that is in the current
> specification. The muck of HTML 5 would have to be pre-processed
> by a tagsoup-like processor prior to being processed by XSLT. In
> looking over the Saxon API I don't see anything that yet could
> properly handle that. Maybe Michael has some magic up his sleeve.
> So the only thing I can recommend is that if you want to use XML
> technologies such as XSLT that you continue to use some flavour
> of XHTML (i.e., a conformant XML markup). That is, if your work is
> not simply a hobby project.
> Sorry, I probably should have started this message with a <rant>.
> The whole HTML 5 thing just puts me in a bad mood. I keep thinking
> that perhaps I should devise a modular XHTML DTD that incorporates
> most of the sensible HTML 5 features and just post it somewhere --
> it certainly wouldn't take ten years, or even two -- but frankly
> someone would have to pay me for that kind of effort, I couldn't
> be bothered with trying to submit it into the W3C "process", and I
> really don't want to become Yet Another WHATWG. Life is too short.
> Murray Altheim <murray11 at altheim dot com> = =
> http://www.altheim.com/murray/ ===
> SGML Grease Monkey, Banjo Player, Wantanabe Zen Monk = =
> Boundless wind and moon - the eye within eyes,
> Inexhaustible heaven and earth - the light beyond light,
> The willow dark, the flower bright - ten thousand houses,
> Knock at any door - there's one who will respond.
> -- The Blue Cliff Record
> LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial
> Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support
> Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services
> Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers
> saxon-help mailing list archived at http://saxon.markmail.org/