1 person found this helpful
Not exactly certain what you are referring to here, I take it singleton = empty?
The html5 you are referring to is the none xml compliant version, however the html5 spec, (http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/infrastructure.html) does allow for the xml variant -
Except where otherwise stated, all elements defined or mentioned
in this specification are in the
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtmlnamespace, and all
attributes defined or mentioned in this specification have no
For compatibility with existing content and prior specifications,
this specification describes two authoring formats: one based on XML
(referred to as the XHTML syntax), and one using a custom format inspired by SGML (referred to as
the HTML syntax). Implementations
may support only one of these two formats, although supporting both
The DW html5 includes the xml variation, and is my preferred variation, so in order to comply with your request this must be removed, this would cause me to ask that the DW extension be rewritten to support the xml variant.
I am not saying that what you are asking is wrong, just that for the html5 I wish to use, it is correct.
regardless of the variant of html5 being used, the embed element's syntax is incorrect in the dw extension. so I begin to wonder about other questionable elements.
when I questioned Ian Hickson (the author of the documents) about permission to make a summary document of html5, he said I was only licensed to use the whatwg, not the w3c document to make the summary, and then pointed me to the license page. So I begin to wonder what the purpose of the w3c document is for. (?)
you could probably ask on the www-talk mailing list at the w3c if you want to be sure which document is proper to use.
understanding at least a few key parts of the document is key to making a proper extension. yes, the term "singleton"="void element" in w3c document parlance. here is a link to the list of singletons ("void elements"). all else are
in fact, it is possible dreamweaver may have this coded incorrectly also.
since I am doing some personal HTML5 feature testing and draft (even unimplemented) html5/css3 coding, it would be nice to have the full feature set available to me. thanks.
the w3c document says the standard ignores the xmlns attribute. the whatwg document has no xmlns attribute (that section of the document may have been deleted). in either case, you have no browser xml support.
Obviously there is still a lot of confusion over what the different 'organizations' that are 'responsible' for html5, (at least they have now agreed that it is html5 and not html 5, (note the space)) agree upon. It has been a couple of months since I looked into what was happening and the differences between the whatwg and w3c documentation, the unfortunate, (or maybe not) disagreements between the two on what should be the standard has only confused the matter for many, and until this is decided upon any change to the DW extension I think would be premature at this point.
You are incorrect in thinking that both the whatwg and w3c documentation do not have a xmlns element as the 2nd quote referring to this in my first reply is taken directly from the October 2010 documentation of the whatwg and it is implemented in FF/Safari/IE9, although the reference recommended is the xhtml from 1999, (shows how little really changes).
It maybe that this will start the debate into how a document should be coded once again, (I hope not) but as I said at the beginning of this post, until the two 'organizations' responsible get their act together, (and possibly stop fighting over who 'owns' the web as html5) then they will only hinder the possibility of more people using html5 as the format of preference.
if I remember right, the whatwg and w3c documents differ only slightly on a couple of attributes in a couple of elements. they are remarkably similar when you boil them down to open/close-singleton, attribute, values.
the global attribs also differ somewhat.
Message was edited by: jmichae1