‘XHTML’ references to ‘HTML’

Since microformats are published in both HTML and XHTML, I
think we  
need to tidy up our references on the Wiki. Again this week
we've had  
an — admittedly premature — suggestion of new syntax which
is XHTML  
only (<a />). That proposal has a few problems as have
been  
discussed, but I think we should fix the Wiki to not give
the wrong  
impression about our use of XHTML in the first place.

This is not about ‘XHTML vs. HTML’. I don't care which you
prefer to  
use.

This is about making clear that microformats are an HTML
technology,  
not an exclusively XHTML technology. ‘HTML’ implies
compatibility  
with XHTML, ‘XHTML’ does not imply compatibility with HTML.

I'd like us to update the wiki to make all references to
‘XHTML’ and  
‘X/HTML’ or ‘(X)HTML’ into clear ‘HTML’. Again, ‘HTML’
implies  
‘XHTML’, so there's no need to use clumsy amalgamations in
regular  
text. The first mention of HTML on the Wiki front-page
should be  
updated to make clear that ‘When we say HTML we refer to
both HTML  
and XHTML syntaxes’. For all intents and purposes in
microformat  
development and publication, there is no difference.

Does this seem worthwhile?

Ben
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On Nov 26, 2007 3:42 PM, Ben Ward <listsben-ward.co.uk> wrote:
> This is about making clear that microformats are an
HTML technology,
> not an exclusively XHTML technology. 'HTML' implies
compatibility
> with XHTML, 'XHTML' does not imply compatibility with
HTML.

It sounds like a solid idea to me, but I'd really worry that
it would
be unclear that we mean 'HTML and XHTML'.  Is (X)HTML too
unwieldy to
be the global replacement?

-Ciaran McNulty
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On 26 Nov 2007, at 15:55, Ciaran McNulty wrote:

> Is (X)HTML too unwieldy to
> be the global replacement?

I feel that ‘(X)HTML’ or ‘X/HTML’ in every instance would
read  
clumsily and uglify the text. It would be irritating to read
an  
entire document where every instance of a familiar and
legible  
abbreviation was peppered with parenthesis. I proposed
having a  
single ‘HTML and XHTML’ definition on the microformats wiki
front  
page, but it would be reasonable to say that the _first_
mention of  
HTML on every wiki page should say ‘HTML and XHTML’ or ‘HTML
or  
XHTML’ as appropriate.

Having the first instance expanded is good practice for  
abbreviations, so it would make sense to expand the first
‘HTML and  
XHTML’ and use ‘HTML’ thereafter.

How's that?

Ben
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

2007/11/26, Ben Ward <listsben-ward.co.uk>:
> This is about making clear that microformats are an
HTML technology,
> not an exclusively XHTML technology. 'HTML' implies
compatibility
> with XHTML, 'XHTML' does not imply compatibility with
HTML.

--- i'm not sure HTML does imply compatibility with XHTML.
HTML you
can be sloppy and not close tags, that is not XHTML
compatible. Then
HTML5 is not following the SGML rules, so somethings in
HTML5 will NOT
be valid XHTML no matter how you slice it. (but that is off
topic for
this thread)

> Does this seem worthwhile?

--- i do agreed that we should somehow stress that
microformats are
design for HTML4 and up, this will include HTML5, XHTML, et
al. Even
microformats embedded in RSS feeds.

So anything to clarify the wiki that this is NOT an XHTML
only
technology is a good idea.

How should we proceed? maybe list a few example changes
here, discuss
the rewording, Then start editing the wiki, when we have
some
consensus?

-brian

-- 
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

+1.

I agree with the concern. I sat on a presentation where the
speaker
spoke of microformats as if they were xhtml-only. I know the
POSH
concept is there to prevent this confusion, but apparently,
it's not
enough, Is it? Maybe POS(X)H doesn't seem to cut it, does
it?

--
André Luís

On Nov 26, 2007 3:55 PM, Ciaran McNulty <mailciaranmcnulty.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2007 3:42 PM, Ben Ward <listsben-ward.co.uk> wrote:
> > This is about making clear that microformats are
an HTML technology,
> > not an exclusively XHTML technology. 'HTML'
implies compatibility
> > with XHTML, 'XHTML' does not imply compatibility
with HTML.
>
> It sounds like a solid idea to me, but I'd really worry
that it would
> be unclear that we mean 'HTML and XHTML'.  Is (X)HTML
too unwieldy to
> be the global replacement?
>
> -Ciaran McNulty
>
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discussmicroformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss
>

_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On 26 Nov 2007, at 16:02, Brian Suda wrote:

> 2007/11/26, Ben Ward <listsben-ward.co.uk>:
>> This is about making clear that microformats are an
HTML technology,
>> not an exclusively XHTML technology. 'HTML' implies
compatibility
>> with XHTML, 'XHTML' does not imply compatibility
with HTML.
>
> --- i'm not sure HTML does imply compatibility with
XHTML. HTML you
> can be sloppy and not close tags, that is not XHTML
compatible. Then
> HTML5 is not following the SGML rules, so somethings in
HTML5 will NOT
> be valid XHTML no matter how you slice it. (but that is
off topic for
> this thread)

I mean that in the context of using the microformats syntax,
not of  
the HTML itself. In terms that XHTML is a stricter syntax of
HTML,  
therefore HTML is the lower common denominator than XHTML.
You can  
use the same microformats syntax within either the liberal
parsing  
rules of HTML or the strict rules of XHTML.

Referring to HTML in place of ‘HTML or XHTML’ does not imply
anything  
about a publisher's usage of HTML. If they are using XHTML
then they  
will understand the addition syntax rules that must be
adhered to.  
However, referring to XHTML where we mean ‘HTML or XHTML’
implies  
that the publisher _must_ adhere to the stricter rules, or
implies to  
a parser that it can depend on them.

André Luís:
> I agree with the concern. I sat on a presentation where
the speaker
> spoke of microformats as if they were xhtml-only. I
know the POSH
> concept is there to prevent this confusion, but
apparently, it's not
> enough, Is it? Maybe POS(X)H doesn't seem to cut it,
does it?


I'm not sure that ‘POSH’ has made anything less confusing to
anyone.  
As far as communication goes, this is definitely a separate
issue.

Ben
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Ben Ward wrote:

> I'd like us to update the wiki to make all references
to ‘XHTML’ and
> ‘X/HTML’ or ‘(X)HTML’ into clear
‘HTML’[...] Does this seem worthwhile?

I'm all for it. I'd love to take this even further, and
s/XHTML/HTML/ in
XMDP and XFN, but those ships have sailed.


Ted

-- 
Edward O'Connor
hober0gmail.com

Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.

_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On Nov 27, 2007 8:28 AM, Edward O'Connor <hober0gmail.com> wrote:
> Ben Ward wrote:
>
> > I'd like us to update the wiki to make all
references to 'XHTML' and
> > 'X/HTML' or '(X)HTML' into clear 'HTML'[...] Does
this seem worthwhile?
>
> I'm all for it. I'd love to take this even further, and
s/XHTML/HTML/ in
> XMDP and XFN, but those ships have sailed.

The only concern that I'd have is that visitors to the site
are likely
to think that microformats are an older less worthwhile idea
because
of all the HTML references. First impressions can be
important, so how
can that be dealt with?

-- 
Paul Wilkins
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On 26 Nov 2007, at 19:49, Paul Wilkins wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2007 8:28 AM, Edward O'Connor <hober0gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ben Ward wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like us to update the wiki to make all
references to 'XHTML' and
>>> 'X/HTML' or '(X)HTML' into clear 'HTML'[...]
Does this seem  
>>> worthwhile?
>>
>> I'm all for it. I'd love to take this even further,
and s/XHTML/ 
>> HTML/ in
>> XMDP and XFN, but those ships have sailed.
>
> The only concern that I'd have is that visitors to the
site are likely
> to think that microformats are an older less worthwhile
idea because
> of all the HTML references. First impressions can be
important, so how
> can that be dealt with?

By mentioning ‘XHTML and HTML’ in each first instance, we
make clear  
that both flavours are compatible, whilst using ‘HTML’ there
on reads  
as a cleaner abbreviation.

Ben
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Here's an idea... since that would involve altering every
page with
xhtml in them anyway, why not go one step further and in the
first
reference to XHTML change it to "HTML or XHTML"
with a link to an
explanatory page? Stating that ufs work on both worlds.

--
André

On Nov 26, 2007 9:10 PM, Ben Ward <listsben-ward.co.uk> wrote:
> By mentioning 'XHTML and HTML' in each first instance,
we make clear
> that both flavours are compatible, whilst using 'HTML'
there on reads
> as a cleaner abbreviation.
>
> Ben

_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss