Yes, it probably is the most realistic specification so far.

mynthon,

Thanks for the tip.
And about being backwards compatible: first, it can be completely compatible if you write it in a strict XML form. But even if you don’t, it will work in any XHTML page, as long as it’s not served as application/xhtml+xml.

Aside of your coments there is another problem. While xhtml syntax is backward compatible html5 iss not. It is not campatible with xhtml. Take this simple example.

“If you want to support us please put this code on your page:
[A HREF="link.html"]Support my friend[/A] – this will not work with xhtml.

Personally, I would like that too. But, I do understand the reasoning behind allowing other options as well.

I hate windows webmasters,

Well, even if you use the regular HTML-syntax you are talking about, consistency and code formatting is equally as important.

Tomek,

HTML5 is absolutely great, in many aspects. However, I believe developers need some way to ensure code consistency.

Syntax should stay strict. IMHO

Yes, at least I believe it’s one of the things we need to be able to ensure code consistency.

Absolutely, just strict rendering helps a little at least.

mattur, pL, Tab,

I’m all for people choosing themselves. But, when it comes to working in organizations, re-use of code, code consistency, aggregation etc, more strict guidelines would definitely be welcome, and the reaction from the people I have met have been worry about this.

pL,

It doesn’t matter what you think you’re writing. In the end what matters is how browser interprets it, and that hasn’t changed.

While I get what you are after, and agree in essence, never underexpect code guidelines and consistency, especially in larger projects.

Tab,

You are absolutely right with most of what you write. But, there definitely is a problem, and that is how HTML5 is perceived by a large amount of web developers. If they find the syntax options to be sloppy, incorrect or whatever, they will shy away from using it and just stick around with regular HTML or XHTML.

What my point here is that, sure, anyone can use whichever syntax approach they want, it is very very important to, at the very least, offer validation options or similar for people to get the strictness that made them love strict HTML or XHTML.

It was literally impossible to do anything else and have a document that actually described how to parse documents on the public web. Parsers aren’t just for future documents; they have to deal with pages that were written way back in the days of HTML 1 or 2 (and the HTML5 parsing algorithm does!).

This has no effect whatsoever on your own ability to use and enforce a particular subset of the syntax that you prefer using. Yes, <input type=text> is allowed. That doesn’t mean you have to use it, nor does it mean that it’s somehow wrong or impossible for a validator to flag it. It’s valid “vanilla HTML5″, but it might be invalid “your preferred syntax”. Just get a validator to consider it worthwhile to implement something that checks for your preferred syntax, or write your own validator.

Let me state this again, so it’s clear: HTML5′s standardization of a particular syntax *has no effect* on your own ability to restrict yourself to a subset that you like better. If you think that all this craziness is bad for code quality, just don’t use it. Use your preferred XML or near-XML syntax and be happy. You are not somehow required to avoid />’ing your void elements, or to keep your attributes unquoted.

This is not a problem.

HTML5 hasn’t created any new syntax. It merely documented the syntax you’ve been using all along!

Yes, even documents you thought were XHTML working in IE were in fact using syntax that is now called HTML5.

It doesn’t matter what you think you’re writing. In the end what matters is how browser interprets it, and that hasn’t changed.

Your only option is evangelism. Even changes in the spec will amount to evangelism, because the spec is unable to change reality (at least not until last copy of today’s browser and pages die out).

Absolutely, good point!

We need a Lint-Tool for [X]HTML[5], wich ensures writing clean, stricter and more browser-compilant code.

A Lint-Tool is not only needed to make HTML5 stricter, it can also be used to avoid not cross-browser-compilant XHML-Syntax like <span />, <script src=”behavior.js” /> etc.

From my perspective, I would also find it easier with a more strict syntax. However, I believe the spec writers have so many things to take into consideration that they need to allow more options – and that perhaps we can complement that with a more strict validation tool.

Tino,

I pretty much completely agree with what that syntax to use, and the rest of the things you say. Also like your openness about consistency!

Aldrik,

Absolutely. To correct myself: the XML-syntax that is allowed, and that people have gotten used with, from XHTML: e.g. closing of empty elements.

Andy,

Yes, i agree about rendering as good as they can. draconian error handling is never a a viable option, at least not in my book.

Bernd,

Well, you have to take into consideration what legacy they have to think about. A lot of the work behind HTML5 is what we can use today, and not only what would be perfect in the future.

On the other side one will be able to distinguish good and bad work.

Still – it’s only realistic to say that User Agents should still attempt to render every document as best they can. Draconian error handling would kill the web.