From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com (mail-ig0-f174.google.com [209.85.213.174])
	by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7AHcggX018464
	for <discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv>; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 13:38:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-f174.google.com with SMTP id c1so3224303igq.1
        for <discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv>; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 10:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references
         :comments:mime-version:content-type:content-id:date:message-id;
        bh=WqDvNWeSnK1RVDZTSu77czyCnxkrjIvUD9oANj2kfrw=;
        b=Vf75sodVDikm1uq/0yX0mjjoIaOI6JfWrmUlAdpc6EHLozGizzkwjZIYs7QEUna06i
         L+n6Hcs+So80/rhmFDeG6v66jCPPGRe6bdUsEdLJnIlw6obcvXlc0zGDxwUYkQsa4vhf
         02YhS1MFMd7qYuiv1yaUcCfu/JbsHokXGrRfh838NkQm8gXvnKQjRx3iFX1LzKkYL4em
         NcjzB5Zgb5QGhnEY8iUPib5rR45rtQ0k4PQRoJMNk3MrMpXWXE/zwO0WhTRS/WWGTnKC
         9NFV8/VtQ6V40lOI7Sy/Dn/luNMYefqD09WbT+sHmUtdAnMJe0z1PJa6izSQCXDOcHQb
         DL6Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlKU4tetArVe63pi/nm2o69jBllxKaHyO59wKIaTBatkrETDkEJpY+Ru9bwgJpiMi9ZnVNO
X-Received: by 10.50.112.67 with SMTP id io3mr22622482igb.37.1407692316159;
        Sun, 10 Aug 2014 10:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cathet.us. (97-123-213-212.albq.qwest.net. [97.123.213.212])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j5sm37410967ige.12.2014.08.10.10.38.35
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Sun, 10 Aug 2014 10:38:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cathet.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]);
	by cathet.us. (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 3b83b0b6;
	Sun, 10 Aug 2014 11:38:34 -0600 (MDT)
From: "Anthony J. Bentley" <anthony@cathet.us>
To: Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@usta.de>
cc: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv
Subject: Re: HTML5
In-reply-to: <20140810151725.GC325@iris.usta.de>
References: <53E6AFDD.8010001@bsd.lv> <8860.1407645228@cathet.us> <20140810151725.GC325@iris.usta.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@usta.de>
   message dated "Sun, 10 Aug 2014 17:17:25 +0200."
X-Mailinglist: mdocml-discuss
Reply-To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <24347.1407692314.1@cathet.us>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 11:38:34 -0600
Message-ID: <11723.1407692314@cathet.us>

Hi Ingo and Kristaps,

Ingo Schwarze writes:
> Why not?  What downside do you see?

I tried to come up with a technical justification to use HTML4 but
could only come up with aesthetic reasons. And along the way realized
two truths about HTML5 that make me uncomfortable in my decision: first,
that parsing HTML5 really is both simpler and more well-defined (HTML4
still had delusions of SGML-grandeur), and second, that there really is
no sane way to format equations in HTML4; I had not considered the
possibility of eqn at all. So consider my objection to HTML5 output
withdrawn.

> > And if we do that, is there any point to switching doctypes?
> 
> Yes, one minor and one major.
> 
> The minor is less doctype/content-type clutter.
> The major is to get MathML for eqn.
> 
> That also explains why i think validating against both 5 and 4.01
> (for non-eqn content) does have some merit.  Again, if that is
> possible, but as far as i understand, it is.

I don't think this is possible; the whole reason Kristaps' patch
can unify things is because it uses some XML-like syntax that is valid
in HTML5 and invalid in HTML4. Despite that, per above I have no
objections to doing that at this point.

-- 
Anthony J. Bentley
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv