3 ms·

I don’t think this is right. XHTML guarantees well-formedness (matched closing tags et al) but doesn’t do anything for validity. It’s not semantically valid for

by bayesnet 10mo ago

I don’t think this is right. XHTML guarantees well-formedness (matched closing tags et al) but doesn’t do anything for validity. It’s not semantically valid for <td> to be a direct child of <table>, so the user agent has to make the call as to what to display regardless of the (X)HTML flavor. The alternative is parsing failure on improperly nested HTML which I don’t think is desirable.

intrasight 10mo ago
> The alternative is parsing failure on improperly nested HTML which I don’t think is desirable. It was that decision that resulted in the current mess. Browser vendors could have given us a grace period to fix HTML that didn't validate against the schema. Instead they said "there is no schema"
- bayesnet 10mo ago
  The issue as I see it is that XML schemas are fine[0] for immutable documents but not suited for dynamic content. As a user it would be extraordinarily frustrating for a site or web app to break midflow because of a schema validation failure after a setHTML call or something. [0]: I’ve worked with XML schemas a lot and have grown to really dislike them actually but that’s neither here nor there
  - intrasight 10mo ago
    Users would be angry at any buggy software. Yours is just another example of buggy software. Strongly typed software is a pain but it's benefits are starting to be recognized again. Unfortunately it's too late for XML.