On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:04:58 +0100 Alexandre Niveau <alexandre.niv...@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 <d...@frign.de>
