On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:04:58 +0100
Alexandre Niveau <alexandre.niveau_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm probably missing something here, but specifically the HTML
> boilerplate *did* become drastically simpler in the last few years.
> Now [1] an HTML5 page is just supposed to be:
>
> <!DOCTYPE html>
> <html lang=en>
> <head>
> <meta charset="UTF-8">
> <title>Page title</title>
> </head>
> <body>
> <p>Hello world</p>
> </body>
> </html>
Yeah, but I want the XML parser. Do you guys even write real HTML
markup in real life?
> <!DOCTYPE html>
> <meta charset=UTF-8>
> <title>Page title</title>
> <p>Hello world</p>
This is not valid XHTML.
> I'd say it's hard to suck less than that as far as HTML goes...
Well, look at what XHTML 2.0 tried to achieve (it was a step in the
right direction). I'll never use HTML5 for the simple reason that
it's a bloated hell. So you better not insult the suckless-philosophy
with some HTML5-smartness.
> Also it's worth noting that while it's still recommended to keep the
> meta charset tag in there, using any encoding other than UTF-8 is
> invalid HTML5 [3].
No, read your link again. It was talking about XML-documents, which
actually declare the charset in a sane place (at the bloody beginning).
> I believe that all these simplifications do not break backwards
> compatibility too much (that's the whole point), but I'm not certain.
> Maybe that's the reason why you still have to use XHTML?
Have to? XHTML is my weapon of choice, because it is not parsed with
a stupid and bloated SGML-parser but with an XML-parser.
HTML5 on the other hand is an unholy mess and you would know why if
you worked more with it.
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Fri Oct 31 2014 - 20:45:56 CET