[tei-council] whither HTML of Guidelines and @lang

[Gabriel Bodard]

On 2012-11-23 10:07, James Cummings wrote:
> Isn't another option to step back to XHTML 1.0 ? If memory serves
> one of its types allows @lang doesn't it? (Unchecked... do correct me
> > if wrong!)

I think this is correct (that is, I'm sure I've output XHTML1.0 
Transitional with both @xml:lang and @lang in the past and never had any 
complaints from the W3 validator, but I can't back that up...).

> Not saying that is what I want. If we don't have good validation
> procedure for guidelines in html5 then we should probably not use it.
> IMHO.

Why do we need to validate the HTML output of the Guidelines? HTML5 
doesn't even need to be well-formed XML (although it can be, and I like 
it to be). As Sebastian was arguing earlier in the TEI-L thread on 
@lang, the HTML is just a delivery medium, not something we need to 
process or expect anyone else to re-use, right?

If we produce HTML5 to the best of our ability, and don't get it all 
right first time, what breaks?

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
Researcher in Digital Epigraphy

Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

T: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
F: +44 (0)20 7848 2980
E: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/