Comments on: HTML 5 Parser Lands in Gecko

By: Joeri

Joeri — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:32:44 +0000

Ofcourse tag soup is a feature. Most of the content of the web is made by people who lack the knowledge to write validating XHTML. What’s more realistic? Modifying the technology a little bit so these people can keep doing what they do without sabotaging the rest of us, or re-educating half the internet? The incredible cost of educating all those people is very wasteful, and can be much better spent on things that actually improve the internet (like putting up more content).

By: JonathanLeech

JonathanLeech — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:43:01 +0000

I like how tagsoup is now a feature, and as such was totally in scope of HTML 5 to specify how to handle it, so it goes to extraordinary lengths to specify how to parse it consistently into the DOM.

Contrast that to XHTML, where serving it without the XML MIME type, necessary because IE won’t implement standards, has a total of half a dozen issues, the most important being that browsers treat it as tagsoup, but that is considered a show-stopper by the HTML 5 spec lead.

But lets all rag on XHTML now that through massive effort the faults of HTML might be fixed 10 years from now when HTML5 gets universally adopted.

By: Rimantas

Rimantas — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:02:27 +0000

@ywg: it’s a pity you try to write witty comments without even knowing the subject.
Let’s see what HTML5 fixes:

it has a most complete parsing algorithm. That means that browsers implementing HTML5 will agree how to treat given document and will
have consistent DOM even if markup is broken. All the broken html
that was produced in yours 15 years is not going anywhere, and HTML5
prescribes how to deal with this content in predictable manner.

it actually let’s you to define document structure better thanks to the new elements and fixed headings scheme.

HTML5 did not abolish XML syntax – it has XML serialization if you need one.

it allows you to include SVG or MathML even in HTML serialization.

it has support of the Apple, Mozilla, Opera.

Of course, you still have a right to think that pipe-dream spec which XTHML2 was with zero interest among browser vendors and incompatible with existing web would actually fix anything.

By: chiaroscuro

chiaroscuro — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 04:09:38 +0000

WHAT?7 A hand-written parser in the year 2009 AD?

These people are mad.

By: eyelidlessness

eyelidlessness — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:53:02 +0000

XHTML 5.

By: zachstronaut

zachstronaut — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:39:13 +0000

My tags were stripped… the examples were [h1]My Heading[/h1] and [div]My Heading[/div].

By: zachstronaut

zachstronaut — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:09:53 +0000

Hi Darkimmortal,

Actually there are several reasons why semantic markup is useful, and you should use it for your sites:

1. People with different abilities cannot always surf the web with a browser and a mouse. They use adaptive technologies such as screen readers which provide a significantly better experience to that user when your markup is semantic.

2. Semantic markup is more easily re-styled for different media/formats. You can use the same semantic markup for a desktop browser version of your page, a mobile version of your page, and a printed version of your page with just a little CSS work.

3. Search engines reward you for semantic markup. Semantic markup improves your SEO.

4. The future of the web will involve a lot of systems where computers talk to other computers and where web apps automagically read web pages. Computers are shockingly stupid at understanding language and meaning. Defining your markup in a semantic way — especially if we all agree on a way to do it — will allow for programmers to create web app mash-ups and rich search apps and all sorts of cool things with much less effort because computers will have an easier time finding the right data. Regex is a nice way to do quick and dirty screen scraping… for a particular site… when you know the structure of their markup. It is not so hot when you want to find a particular type of information for *any* site (e.g. good luck writing a regex to find the hours a business is open for any arbitrary business’s website.)

Also, Darkimmortal, I think you may be a little confused since HTML5 actually deliberately adds many semantic features.

Oh, and since you seem a little confused, lets make sure we’re talking about the same thing: when people talk about a “semantic” website, what they are actually referring to is the markup underlying that website’s pages.

And, without getting into it too much, “semantic markup” means that the markup imparts information about the content it wraps. So for example, My Heading is semantic because the tag tells me that “My Heading” is a level 1 heading. Whereas, My Heading is not semantic because it tells me nothing about “My Heading.”

I hope this helps.

By: Darkimmortal

Darkimmortal — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:22:32 +0000

So does this mean everyone has realised that the only time a website would ever need to be “semantic” is if someone is stupid enough to parse it and use a full DOM rather than a regex?

By: ywg

ywg — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:10:31 +0000

Hurray ! we’re good for another 15 years of broken document structure and lack of basic features such as namespace and extensibility.
Thank you WHAT-WG for hearing our needs and make sure that nothing get fixed.

By: dotnetCarpenter

dotnetCarpenter — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:43:37 +0000

Another: “XHTML was the Edsel of the web: painstakingly designed, proudly touted, and utterly missing the point.”
That’s horrible. I’ve waited years for XHTML to reach a point in browser implementation where I can have an XML file with CSS/JavaScript attached, and now nothing?!? If HTML5 is the way to go, then the specs for the next 10 years should be a recormendation already, if we are to learn anything from history.

I think whoever wrote the quote is missing the point!