5 ms·
> Ultimately XHMTL is better suited to epub's use case, which is static documents that are written once and not dynamically generated by templating languages or
by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> Ultimately XHMTL is better suited to epub's use case, which is static documents that are written once and not dynamically generated by templating languages or libraries.
That's backwards. Relying on software to assign random meaning to broken input is never a good solution to anything, neither for static documents nor for dynamically generated documents. It's just that HTML allows you to get away with it, kindof (i.e., no scary error messages, just subtle breakage everywhere), which is why people built templating systems that didn't bother with correctness either. If the web had been XHTML from the beginning, templating systems would have been built in a way that makes it hard to generate broken documents in the first place, because the error messages would have created the incentive to do so, thus avoiding a lot of the subtle breakage as well.
- afiori 7y agoThat also assuming that the browser war never happened. The web is (was?) essentially a libertarian wild dream of unregulated evolution for a long time. The question is not if we took a suboptimal path in this evolution, but if there was a better way to define the process. This is not to argue anything, if the web had started with XHTML maybe it would be better or maybe it would be worse.
- goto11 7y agoAgreed. Nobody is complaining that JavaScript terminate parsing on syntax errors. Because it has been like that from the beginning. The problem is introducing stricter rules which breaks existing content.