<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_03_1447237</id>
	<title>XHTML 2 Cancelled</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246635120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.hexnut.org/" rel="nofollow">Jake Lazaroff</a> writes <i>"According to the W3 News Archive, the charter for the XHTML2 Working Group &mdash; set to expire on December 31st, 2009 &mdash; <a href="http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item119">will not be renewed</a>.  What does this mean?  XHTML2 will never be a W3C recommendation, so get on the HTML 5 bandwagon now.  According to <a href="http://www.w3.org/2009/06/xhtml-faq.html">the XHTML FAQ</a>, however, the W3C does 'plan for the XML serialization of HTML to remain compatible with XML.'  Looks like with HTML 5, we'll get the best of both worlds."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jake Lazaroff writes " According to the W3 News Archive , the charter for the XHTML2 Working Group    set to expire on December 31st , 2009    will not be renewed .
What does this mean ?
XHTML2 will never be a W3C recommendation , so get on the HTML 5 bandwagon now .
According to the XHTML FAQ , however , the W3C does 'plan for the XML serialization of HTML to remain compatible with XML .
' Looks like with HTML 5 , we 'll get the best of both worlds .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jake Lazaroff writes "According to the W3 News Archive, the charter for the XHTML2 Working Group — set to expire on December 31st, 2009 — will not be renewed.
What does this mean?
XHTML2 will never be a W3C recommendation, so get on the HTML 5 bandwagon now.
According to the XHTML FAQ, however, the W3C does 'plan for the XML serialization of HTML to remain compatible with XML.
'  Looks like with HTML 5, we'll get the best of both worlds.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572489</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>IntlHarvester</author>
	<datestamp>1246640880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. XHTML was rather pointless. It didn't add any particularlly interesting features, made pages more difficult to author, and its claim that it made life easier for browser authors was belied by poor support and slow rendering. Making things more "XMLish" with closed tags and quoted attributes was a good idea, but in reality writing XML-conformant CSS/Javascript XML was a pain in the butt and usually not done.</p><p>I suppose XHTML might have been useful as part of a document management/transformation system, but it didn't seem to offer much to most web developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
XHTML was rather pointless .
It did n't add any particularlly interesting features , made pages more difficult to author , and its claim that it made life easier for browser authors was belied by poor support and slow rendering .
Making things more " XMLish " with closed tags and quoted attributes was a good idea , but in reality writing XML-conformant CSS/Javascript XML was a pain in the butt and usually not done.I suppose XHTML might have been useful as part of a document management/transformation system , but it did n't seem to offer much to most web developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
XHTML was rather pointless.
It didn't add any particularlly interesting features, made pages more difficult to author, and its claim that it made life easier for browser authors was belied by poor support and slow rendering.
Making things more "XMLish" with closed tags and quoted attributes was a good idea, but in reality writing XML-conformant CSS/Javascript XML was a pain in the butt and usually not done.I suppose XHTML might have been useful as part of a document management/transformation system, but it didn't seem to offer much to most web developers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576427</id>
	<title>Re:HTML 5 parsing is just awful.</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1246627140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now try to imagine Microsoft, Opera, Mozilla, and Google implementing that compatibly.</p></div><p>Which is why there should be a reference implementation that's free for anyone to use and relicense for any purpose.</p><p>Then anyone can copy that code into their own; either by machine or by hand.</p><p>On a related tangent, have any of you wondered why mathematics uses prose rather than some kind of formalized pseudo-code to express algorithms?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now try to imagine Microsoft , Opera , Mozilla , and Google implementing that compatibly.Which is why there should be a reference implementation that 's free for anyone to use and relicense for any purpose.Then anyone can copy that code into their own ; either by machine or by hand.On a related tangent , have any of you wondered why mathematics uses prose rather than some kind of formalized pseudo-code to express algorithms ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now try to imagine Microsoft, Opera, Mozilla, and Google implementing that compatibly.Which is why there should be a reference implementation that's free for anyone to use and relicense for any purpose.Then anyone can copy that code into their own; either by machine or by hand.On a related tangent, have any of you wondered why mathematics uses prose rather than some kind of formalized pseudo-code to express algorithms?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572801</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>PenguSven</author>
	<datestamp>1246642680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Agreed. XHTML was rather pointless. It didn't add any particularlly interesting features, made pages more difficult to author, and its claim that it made life easier for browser authors was belied by poor support and slow rendering. Making things more "XMLish" with closed tags and quoted attributes was a good idea, but in reality writing XML-conformant CSS/Javascript XML was a pain in the butt and usually not done.

I suppose XHTML might have been useful as part of a document management/transformation system, but it didn't seem to offer much to most web developers.</p></div></blockquote><p>

The ability to parse a web document using native XML methods is pointless?

As for CSS/JS in xhtml. How hard is embedding the content as CDATA? Why are you even embedding CSS/JS in the XHTML?

If web developers don't need the XML parsing functionality, they can keep using HTML 4.01.



As for HTML5 - technically HTML5 consists of HTML5 (using the HTML syntax rules) and XHTML5 (using the XML syntax rules). I think it's great the W3C have "one" standard to work on, but if you think HTML5 is ready to go any time soon, don't kid yourself. Stick with either HTML4 or XHTML for now. It will take some time before it's safe to deploy valid (X)HTML5 documents for general consumption.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
XHTML was rather pointless .
It did n't add any particularlly interesting features , made pages more difficult to author , and its claim that it made life easier for browser authors was belied by poor support and slow rendering .
Making things more " XMLish " with closed tags and quoted attributes was a good idea , but in reality writing XML-conformant CSS/Javascript XML was a pain in the butt and usually not done .
I suppose XHTML might have been useful as part of a document management/transformation system , but it did n't seem to offer much to most web developers .
The ability to parse a web document using native XML methods is pointless ?
As for CSS/JS in xhtml .
How hard is embedding the content as CDATA ?
Why are you even embedding CSS/JS in the XHTML ?
If web developers do n't need the XML parsing functionality , they can keep using HTML 4.01 .
As for HTML5 - technically HTML5 consists of HTML5 ( using the HTML syntax rules ) and XHTML5 ( using the XML syntax rules ) .
I think it 's great the W3C have " one " standard to work on , but if you think HTML5 is ready to go any time soon , do n't kid yourself .
Stick with either HTML4 or XHTML for now .
It will take some time before it 's safe to deploy valid ( X ) HTML5 documents for general consumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Agreed.
XHTML was rather pointless.
It didn't add any particularlly interesting features, made pages more difficult to author, and its claim that it made life easier for browser authors was belied by poor support and slow rendering.
Making things more "XMLish" with closed tags and quoted attributes was a good idea, but in reality writing XML-conformant CSS/Javascript XML was a pain in the butt and usually not done.
I suppose XHTML might have been useful as part of a document management/transformation system, but it didn't seem to offer much to most web developers.
The ability to parse a web document using native XML methods is pointless?
As for CSS/JS in xhtml.
How hard is embedding the content as CDATA?
Why are you even embedding CSS/JS in the XHTML?
If web developers don't need the XML parsing functionality, they can keep using HTML 4.01.
As for HTML5 - technically HTML5 consists of HTML5 (using the HTML syntax rules) and XHTML5 (using the XML syntax rules).
I think it's great the W3C have "one" standard to work on, but if you think HTML5 is ready to go any time soon, don't kid yourself.
Stick with either HTML4 or XHTML for now.
It will take some time before it's safe to deploy valid (X)HTML5 documents for general consumption.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573519</id>
	<title>Re:CSS 3 spec</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1246647180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no "CSS3 spec".  There is a whole bunch of separate specs all advancing along the REC track separately.  They're at various stages of readiness.</p><p>For example, CSS Namespaces is in CR ("spec work done, implement it please").  It'll become a REC once there is a test suite and two interoperable implementations and the various paperwork involved in becoming a REC is done.</p><p>Selectors Level 3, CSS Color Level 3, CSS Multi-column layout are all in Last Call, with the next step being either CR or PR (PR is "this is done implemented and all; just needs sign-off from the W3C staff").  Same for Media Queries, CSS Basic User Interface, CSS Marquee Level 3, CSS Print Profile, etc.</p><p>Was there a particular part of "CSS3" you were interested in seeing specced and implemented?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no " CSS3 spec " .
There is a whole bunch of separate specs all advancing along the REC track separately .
They 're at various stages of readiness.For example , CSS Namespaces is in CR ( " spec work done , implement it please " ) .
It 'll become a REC once there is a test suite and two interoperable implementations and the various paperwork involved in becoming a REC is done.Selectors Level 3 , CSS Color Level 3 , CSS Multi-column layout are all in Last Call , with the next step being either CR or PR ( PR is " this is done implemented and all ; just needs sign-off from the W3C staff " ) .
Same for Media Queries , CSS Basic User Interface , CSS Marquee Level 3 , CSS Print Profile , etc.Was there a particular part of " CSS3 " you were interested in seeing specced and implemented ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no "CSS3 spec".
There is a whole bunch of separate specs all advancing along the REC track separately.
They're at various stages of readiness.For example, CSS Namespaces is in CR ("spec work done, implement it please").
It'll become a REC once there is a test suite and two interoperable implementations and the various paperwork involved in becoming a REC is done.Selectors Level 3, CSS Color Level 3, CSS Multi-column layout are all in Last Call, with the next step being either CR or PR (PR is "this is done implemented and all; just needs sign-off from the W3C staff").
Same for Media Queries, CSS Basic User Interface, CSS Marquee Level 3, CSS Print Profile, etc.Was there a particular part of "CSS3" you were interested in seeing specced and implemented?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578965</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>bar-agent</author>
	<datestamp>1246705740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Every person on Earth should be allowed, and encouraged, to create web pages. I hate this elitist crap.</i></p><p>Have you even <i>seen</i> MySpace?</p><p>All that background music...and the blinking...the horrible blinking...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every person on Earth should be allowed , and encouraged , to create web pages .
I hate this elitist crap.Have you even seen MySpace ? All that background music...and the blinking...the horrible blinking.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every person on Earth should be allowed, and encouraged, to create web pages.
I hate this elitist crap.Have you even seen MySpace?All that background music...and the blinking...the horrible blinking...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574283</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>dingo8baby</author>
	<datestamp>1246652760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>HTML5 (it runs all browsers)</p> </div><p>I don't consider a browser to run HTML5 until it utilizes <em>all</em> tags, not just the ones that are carried over from HTML4</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 ( it runs all browsers ) I do n't consider a browser to run HTML5 until it utilizes all tags , not just the ones that are carried over from HTML4</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5 (it runs all browsers) I don't consider a browser to run HTML5 until it utilizes all tags, not just the ones that are carried over from HTML4
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572647</id>
	<title>No more compound documents?</title>
	<author>otakuj462</author>
	<datestamp>1246641900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I liked about XHTML was the conceptual clarity regarding the creation of compound documents. Like XML, XHTML is modular, precise and fully extensible via XML namespaces. This allowed one to augment XHTML without needing to fully revise the XHTML spec: one simply needed to use an alternate XHTML namespace inside of the XHTML document. So, for example, this made it very easy to use XHTML in conjunction with SVG, another XML application. I know that HTML5 defines ways in which it may be used in conjunction with SVG, but I'm not sure if it's extensible in the same way. What happens if we want to mix in another format, like XForms? Will we have to go back and revise the complete HTML5 spec?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I liked about XHTML was the conceptual clarity regarding the creation of compound documents .
Like XML , XHTML is modular , precise and fully extensible via XML namespaces .
This allowed one to augment XHTML without needing to fully revise the XHTML spec : one simply needed to use an alternate XHTML namespace inside of the XHTML document .
So , for example , this made it very easy to use XHTML in conjunction with SVG , another XML application .
I know that HTML5 defines ways in which it may be used in conjunction with SVG , but I 'm not sure if it 's extensible in the same way .
What happens if we want to mix in another format , like XForms ?
Will we have to go back and revise the complete HTML5 spec ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I liked about XHTML was the conceptual clarity regarding the creation of compound documents.
Like XML, XHTML is modular, precise and fully extensible via XML namespaces.
This allowed one to augment XHTML without needing to fully revise the XHTML spec: one simply needed to use an alternate XHTML namespace inside of the XHTML document.
So, for example, this made it very easy to use XHTML in conjunction with SVG, another XML application.
I know that HTML5 defines ways in which it may be used in conjunction with SVG, but I'm not sure if it's extensible in the same way.
What happens if we want to mix in another format, like XForms?
Will we have to go back and revise the complete HTML5 spec?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573873</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1246649460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But when people put &lt;a hrefhttp://www.goatse.cx&gt; in the comments, you can end up with the rest of the page being a hyperlink to some horrible picture.  That's not a good thing, and you need to do some checking to stop that from happening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But when people put in the comments , you can end up with the rest of the page being a hyperlink to some horrible picture .
That 's not a good thing , and you need to do some checking to stop that from happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But when people put  in the comments, you can end up with the rest of the page being a hyperlink to some horrible picture.
That's not a good thing, and you need to do some checking to stop that from happening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572473</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246640700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XHTML would have been great standard.</p><p>When fed invalid XHTML, the browser chokes, which would have gone a long way to eliminating much of the crap code, and crap "web developers" out there.<br>I don't see why it's the browsers business to be THAT lenient, and second guess the developer all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XHTML would have been great standard.When fed invalid XHTML , the browser chokes , which would have gone a long way to eliminating much of the crap code , and crap " web developers " out there.I do n't see why it 's the browsers business to be THAT lenient , and second guess the developer all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XHTML would have been great standard.When fed invalid XHTML, the browser chokes, which would have gone a long way to eliminating much of the crap code, and crap "web developers" out there.I don't see why it's the browsers business to be THAT lenient, and second guess the developer all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28592255</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246875360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's just because you're not l33t!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just because you 're not l33t !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just because you're not l33t!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574395</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>omuls are tasty</author>
	<datestamp>1246653660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Imagine a compiler that would eat any typo. Missing brackets, braces, semicolons, object-function separators, completely meaningless semantic messes.</p></div><p>Must... resist... must... resist...<b>PHP! Bloody PHP! Bloody E\_NOTICE!</b> </p><p>Oh dear, there goes my karma...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine a compiler that would eat any typo .
Missing brackets , braces , semicolons , object-function separators , completely meaningless semantic messes.Must... resist... must... resist...PHP ! Bloody PHP !
Bloody E \ _NOTICE !
Oh dear , there goes my karma.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Imagine a compiler that would eat any typo.
Missing brackets, braces, semicolons, object-function separators, completely meaningless semantic messes.Must... resist... must... resist...PHP! Bloody PHP!
Bloody E\_NOTICE!
Oh dear, there goes my karma...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573677</id>
	<title>Re:CSS 3 spec</title>
	<author>jilles</author>
	<datestamp>1246648260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the whole problem. All the experts are working for the browser vendors. The W3C never had any business overriding them. Css3 will never happen (standardized &amp; widely implemented). But of course the relevant bits have long been implemented and now those await standardization. It would be nice if w3c bureaucracy could catch up here.</p><p>Basically what's wrong here is that after a agile start in the nineties, w3c turned into yet another standards organ. Essentially, for most of the past ten years they've done nothing relevant. Most of the good stuff on the web today basically bypassed their processes (AJAX, HTML5, javascript, DOM). At some point XHTML was hijacked by the Semantic Web crowd. This was essentially given a well deserved neck shot today. They never produced standards or products worth reporting here. Meanwhile, browser vendors had to organize outside the W3C to get some progress going. Current HTML5 is the result of that. Anything else ongoing in W3C is pretty much not relevant (unless you are part of the Semantic Web crowd). Css3 is a good example of why standardize first and implement later is a bad idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the whole problem .
All the experts are working for the browser vendors .
The W3C never had any business overriding them .
Css3 will never happen ( standardized &amp; widely implemented ) .
But of course the relevant bits have long been implemented and now those await standardization .
It would be nice if w3c bureaucracy could catch up here.Basically what 's wrong here is that after a agile start in the nineties , w3c turned into yet another standards organ .
Essentially , for most of the past ten years they 've done nothing relevant .
Most of the good stuff on the web today basically bypassed their processes ( AJAX , HTML5 , javascript , DOM ) .
At some point XHTML was hijacked by the Semantic Web crowd .
This was essentially given a well deserved neck shot today .
They never produced standards or products worth reporting here .
Meanwhile , browser vendors had to organize outside the W3C to get some progress going .
Current HTML5 is the result of that .
Anything else ongoing in W3C is pretty much not relevant ( unless you are part of the Semantic Web crowd ) .
Css3 is a good example of why standardize first and implement later is a bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the whole problem.
All the experts are working for the browser vendors.
The W3C never had any business overriding them.
Css3 will never happen (standardized &amp; widely implemented).
But of course the relevant bits have long been implemented and now those await standardization.
It would be nice if w3c bureaucracy could catch up here.Basically what's wrong here is that after a agile start in the nineties, w3c turned into yet another standards organ.
Essentially, for most of the past ten years they've done nothing relevant.
Most of the good stuff on the web today basically bypassed their processes (AJAX, HTML5, javascript, DOM).
At some point XHTML was hijacked by the Semantic Web crowd.
This was essentially given a well deserved neck shot today.
They never produced standards or products worth reporting here.
Meanwhile, browser vendors had to organize outside the W3C to get some progress going.
Current HTML5 is the result of that.
Anything else ongoing in W3C is pretty much not relevant (unless you are part of the Semantic Web crowd).
Css3 is a good example of why standardize first and implement later is a bad idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572245</id>
	<title>Send in the clowns</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246639140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a surprise,<br>Who could foresee?<br>I've come to feel about you what you felt about me<br>Why only now when I see that you've drifted away<br>What a surprise, what a clich&#233;</p><p>Isn't it rich, isn't it queer<br>Losing my timing this late in my career<br>And where are the clowns<br>Quick send in the javascript clowns<br>Don't bother they're here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a surprise,Who could foresee ? I 've come to feel about you what you felt about meWhy only now when I see that you 've drifted awayWhat a surprise , what a clich   Is n't it rich , is n't it queerLosing my timing this late in my careerAnd where are the clownsQuick send in the javascript clownsDo n't bother they 're here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a surprise,Who could foresee?I've come to feel about you what you felt about meWhy only now when I see that you've drifted awayWhat a surprise, what a clichéIsn't it rich, isn't it queerLosing my timing this late in my careerAnd where are the clownsQuick send in the javascript clownsDon't bother they're here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572675</id>
	<title>Sounds like a few people are confused...</title>
	<author>MassacrE</author>
	<datestamp>1246642080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XHTML 1 was the XML-ization of the existing HTML 4 stuff.</p><p>XHTML 2 was a new HTML version that sought to remove lots of HTML cruft (including non-XML syntax) and add new capabilities. Basically, it was working toward a new HTML version. This effort has died, because browser makers are not behind it - they are all behind HTML 5.</p><p>HTML 5 has always had an XML profile called XHTML 5, and that won't go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XHTML 1 was the XML-ization of the existing HTML 4 stuff.XHTML 2 was a new HTML version that sought to remove lots of HTML cruft ( including non-XML syntax ) and add new capabilities .
Basically , it was working toward a new HTML version .
This effort has died , because browser makers are not behind it - they are all behind HTML 5.HTML 5 has always had an XML profile called XHTML 5 , and that wo n't go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XHTML 1 was the XML-ization of the existing HTML 4 stuff.XHTML 2 was a new HTML version that sought to remove lots of HTML cruft (including non-XML syntax) and add new capabilities.
Basically, it was working toward a new HTML version.
This effort has died, because browser makers are not behind it - they are all behind HTML 5.HTML 5 has always had an XML profile called XHTML 5, and that won't go away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578373</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>Sigg3.net</author>
	<datestamp>1246738080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are. And thanks to a pretty good search engine we all know that encourages semantic structure, you can sit back and relax while the web sorts itself out. Survival of the strictest.</p><p>Now if I implemented the XHTML 1.0 Strict version of my site that I wrote two years ago anytime soon, I'd probably get a knock up the PageRank ladder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are .
And thanks to a pretty good search engine we all know that encourages semantic structure , you can sit back and relax while the web sorts itself out .
Survival of the strictest.Now if I implemented the XHTML 1.0 Strict version of my site that I wrote two years ago anytime soon , I 'd probably get a knock up the PageRank ladder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are.
And thanks to a pretty good search engine we all know that encourages semantic structure, you can sit back and relax while the web sorts itself out.
Survival of the strictest.Now if I implemented the XHTML 1.0 Strict version of my site that I wrote two years ago anytime soon, I'd probably get a knock up the PageRank ladder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28577513</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1246639860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bullshit. Every person on Earth should be allowed, and encouraged, to create web pages. I hate this elitist crap.</p></div><p>You're conflating '<em>putting content on the web</em>' with '<em>writing HTML</em>'. They don't mean the same thing.</p><p>There is something to be said for your perspective, though: The majority of the 'tag soup' that's crufted up the Web these days is software-generated, not hand-crafted by so-called stupid users.</p><p>XHTML would have forced makers of stupid (i.e. non-XML-compliant) software applications to fix their engines. That would have required lots of effort, but the value of such an effort is philosophically similar to enforcing health and safety standards on manufacturing processes. Yes, it's cheaper to create quick and dirty implementations, but the public good is better served by enforcing minimal levels of quality. It increases the cost of production, but increases the value of the product, too.</p><p>HTML5 tries for a middle road wherein the parser tries to be more forgiving while at the same codifying the ways in which it should fail. It tries to make the failure modes as graceful and predictable as possible. It's sold as a more pragmatic approach to Tag Soup, a problem that's bedeviled us since FrontPage first reared its zombie head.</p><p>For my part, I think it's the wrong approach. I don't think it's as wrong as some of the sins committed by Netscape (&lt;blink&gt;, frames, etc.) and Microsoft (iframe, marquee) in the early days, when they treated the W3C as their bitch, foisting all kinds of stupidity into their browsers, never making more than a token effort at interoperability and openness. HTML5 is an attempt to move incrementally away from the sins of the fathers.</p><p>From that perspective, I'm willing to live with the decision to adopt it, but only because the W3C, as an industry consortium, just doesn't have the leverage to force its members into full conformance with properly machine-readable code.</p><p>People have always miscalculated the cost of creating HTML. The goal of allowing everyone and their dog to post content - any content - online was considered more important than making sure the content itself would be parseable, extensible (the 'X' in XML) and translatable into other, unforeseeable permutations.</p><p>I fundamentally disagree with this contention. I need only point to the mountain of good content lost in a morass of excreta passing for markup for evidence. When we treat user-generated content as a disposable, one-off product that will never again be parsed, processed or transformed, we devalue it. Essentially, we're stating that user-generated content has no enduring merit.</p><p>Now, some slashdot wit is almost certainly going to acerbically observe that the vast majority of user-generated content wasn't worthy of being published even once, let alone stored for posterity. That's as may be, but it's not our job to judge the content. It's our job to ensure that it remains useful. And we've failed at that job, in large part because we got lazy about markup, foisting most of the work on people who shouldn't be expected to know better, telling them to rely on software that should.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
Every person on Earth should be allowed , and encouraged , to create web pages .
I hate this elitist crap.You 're conflating 'putting content on the web ' with 'writing HTML' .
They do n't mean the same thing.There is something to be said for your perspective , though : The majority of the 'tag soup ' that 's crufted up the Web these days is software-generated , not hand-crafted by so-called stupid users.XHTML would have forced makers of stupid ( i.e .
non-XML-compliant ) software applications to fix their engines .
That would have required lots of effort , but the value of such an effort is philosophically similar to enforcing health and safety standards on manufacturing processes .
Yes , it 's cheaper to create quick and dirty implementations , but the public good is better served by enforcing minimal levels of quality .
It increases the cost of production , but increases the value of the product , too.HTML5 tries for a middle road wherein the parser tries to be more forgiving while at the same codifying the ways in which it should fail .
It tries to make the failure modes as graceful and predictable as possible .
It 's sold as a more pragmatic approach to Tag Soup , a problem that 's bedeviled us since FrontPage first reared its zombie head.For my part , I think it 's the wrong approach .
I do n't think it 's as wrong as some of the sins committed by Netscape ( , frames , etc .
) and Microsoft ( iframe , marquee ) in the early days , when they treated the W3C as their bitch , foisting all kinds of stupidity into their browsers , never making more than a token effort at interoperability and openness .
HTML5 is an attempt to move incrementally away from the sins of the fathers.From that perspective , I 'm willing to live with the decision to adopt it , but only because the W3C , as an industry consortium , just does n't have the leverage to force its members into full conformance with properly machine-readable code.People have always miscalculated the cost of creating HTML .
The goal of allowing everyone and their dog to post content - any content - online was considered more important than making sure the content itself would be parseable , extensible ( the 'X ' in XML ) and translatable into other , unforeseeable permutations.I fundamentally disagree with this contention .
I need only point to the mountain of good content lost in a morass of excreta passing for markup for evidence .
When we treat user-generated content as a disposable , one-off product that will never again be parsed , processed or transformed , we devalue it .
Essentially , we 're stating that user-generated content has no enduring merit.Now , some slashdot wit is almost certainly going to acerbically observe that the vast majority of user-generated content was n't worthy of being published even once , let alone stored for posterity .
That 's as may be , but it 's not our job to judge the content .
It 's our job to ensure that it remains useful .
And we 've failed at that job , in large part because we got lazy about markup , foisting most of the work on people who should n't be expected to know better , telling them to rely on software that should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
Every person on Earth should be allowed, and encouraged, to create web pages.
I hate this elitist crap.You're conflating 'putting content on the web' with 'writing HTML'.
They don't mean the same thing.There is something to be said for your perspective, though: The majority of the 'tag soup' that's crufted up the Web these days is software-generated, not hand-crafted by so-called stupid users.XHTML would have forced makers of stupid (i.e.
non-XML-compliant) software applications to fix their engines.
That would have required lots of effort, but the value of such an effort is philosophically similar to enforcing health and safety standards on manufacturing processes.
Yes, it's cheaper to create quick and dirty implementations, but the public good is better served by enforcing minimal levels of quality.
It increases the cost of production, but increases the value of the product, too.HTML5 tries for a middle road wherein the parser tries to be more forgiving while at the same codifying the ways in which it should fail.
It tries to make the failure modes as graceful and predictable as possible.
It's sold as a more pragmatic approach to Tag Soup, a problem that's bedeviled us since FrontPage first reared its zombie head.For my part, I think it's the wrong approach.
I don't think it's as wrong as some of the sins committed by Netscape (, frames, etc.
) and Microsoft (iframe, marquee) in the early days, when they treated the W3C as their bitch, foisting all kinds of stupidity into their browsers, never making more than a token effort at interoperability and openness.
HTML5 is an attempt to move incrementally away from the sins of the fathers.From that perspective, I'm willing to live with the decision to adopt it, but only because the W3C, as an industry consortium, just doesn't have the leverage to force its members into full conformance with properly machine-readable code.People have always miscalculated the cost of creating HTML.
The goal of allowing everyone and their dog to post content - any content - online was considered more important than making sure the content itself would be parseable, extensible (the 'X' in XML) and translatable into other, unforeseeable permutations.I fundamentally disagree with this contention.
I need only point to the mountain of good content lost in a morass of excreta passing for markup for evidence.
When we treat user-generated content as a disposable, one-off product that will never again be parsed, processed or transformed, we devalue it.
Essentially, we're stating that user-generated content has no enduring merit.Now, some slashdot wit is almost certainly going to acerbically observe that the vast majority of user-generated content wasn't worthy of being published even once, let alone stored for posterity.
That's as may be, but it's not our job to judge the content.
It's our job to ensure that it remains useful.
And we've failed at that job, in large part because we got lazy about markup, foisting most of the work on people who shouldn't be expected to know better, telling them to rely on software that should.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572487</id>
	<title>CSS 3 spec</title>
	<author>Piata</author>
	<datestamp>1246640880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More importantly, when are they going to finish the CSS3 spec?</p><p>I love that HTML5 is getting pushed to the forefront and browsers are advancing more than ever, but as a web designer that CSS3 spec needs to get done and pushed on the browser developers because it will be another 2 - 5 years before mass adoption and I'm pretty tired of CSS2.1's limitations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More importantly , when are they going to finish the CSS3 spec ? I love that HTML5 is getting pushed to the forefront and browsers are advancing more than ever , but as a web designer that CSS3 spec needs to get done and pushed on the browser developers because it will be another 2 - 5 years before mass adoption and I 'm pretty tired of CSS2.1 's limitations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More importantly, when are they going to finish the CSS3 spec?I love that HTML5 is getting pushed to the forefront and browsers are advancing more than ever, but as a web designer that CSS3 spec needs to get done and pushed on the browser developers because it will be another 2 - 5 years before mass adoption and I'm pretty tired of CSS2.1's limitations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574223</id>
	<title>Come Together</title>
	<author>revxul</author>
	<datestamp>1246652280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am glad for this. That major fork is not what we need right now. One unified, open standard is the way to go for the web.</p><p>People can piss and moan all they want about the drawbacks, but this does nothing. If it is a problem, push for HTML to integrate the advantages XHTML had over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am glad for this .
That major fork is not what we need right now .
One unified , open standard is the way to go for the web.People can piss and moan all they want about the drawbacks , but this does nothing .
If it is a problem , push for HTML to integrate the advantages XHTML had over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am glad for this.
That major fork is not what we need right now.
One unified, open standard is the way to go for the web.People can piss and moan all they want about the drawbacks, but this does nothing.
If it is a problem, push for HTML to integrate the advantages XHTML had over it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575201</id>
	<title>Say goodbye to .Net 2.0+ apps</title>
	<author>HannethCom</author>
	<datestamp>1246616280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am referring to webform apps, not MVC.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately because of the broken Javascript code that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net 2.0 - 3.5 uses for some of it's post backs, we are unable to make our pages xhtml compatible. The postback code works fine in IE, but no other browsers if the form tag appears outside of the body tag. Unfortunately because of the design of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net we have to have the form tag outside of the body, which causes us to do a really ugly hack to get it working in all browsers. That hack is to put a body tag, the form tag, then in our template we have the actual body tag. Of course this makes our pages not xhtml conformant, but it's the only thing we've found that works around the CLR 2 bugs.  This was not a problem in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net 1.1 because the postback code was properly written. Hopefully this is fixed in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net 4, but I doubt it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am referring to webform apps , not MVC .
Unfortunately because of the broken Javascript code that .Net 2.0 - 3.5 uses for some of it 's post backs , we are unable to make our pages xhtml compatible .
The postback code works fine in IE , but no other browsers if the form tag appears outside of the body tag .
Unfortunately because of the design of .Net we have to have the form tag outside of the body , which causes us to do a really ugly hack to get it working in all browsers .
That hack is to put a body tag , the form tag , then in our template we have the actual body tag .
Of course this makes our pages not xhtml conformant , but it 's the only thing we 've found that works around the CLR 2 bugs .
This was not a problem in .net 1.1 because the postback code was properly written .
Hopefully this is fixed in .Net 4 , but I doubt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am referring to webform apps, not MVC.
Unfortunately because of the broken Javascript code that .Net 2.0 - 3.5 uses for some of it's post backs, we are unable to make our pages xhtml compatible.
The postback code works fine in IE, but no other browsers if the form tag appears outside of the body tag.
Unfortunately because of the design of .Net we have to have the form tag outside of the body, which causes us to do a really ugly hack to get it working in all browsers.
That hack is to put a body tag, the form tag, then in our template we have the actual body tag.
Of course this makes our pages not xhtml conformant, but it's the only thing we've found that works around the CLR 2 bugs.
This was not a problem in .net 1.1 because the postback code was properly written.
Hopefully this is fixed in .Net 4, but I doubt it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572903</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1246643280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know a lot of web developers who dont know the difference between XHTML and HTML, and I hear XHTML as a buzzword all the time.</p></div><p>Duh.  Everyone knows that the "X" is for Xtreme!   It's Xtreme HTML, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a lot of web developers who dont know the difference between XHTML and HTML , and I hear XHTML as a buzzword all the time.Duh .
Everyone knows that the " X " is for Xtreme !
It 's Xtreme HTML , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a lot of web developers who dont know the difference between XHTML and HTML, and I hear XHTML as a buzzword all the time.Duh.
Everyone knows that the "X" is for Xtreme!
It's Xtreme HTML, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576231</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1246625220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem is that everybody dropped HTML to work on XHTML in the first place:</p><p>"Hey, I know! Let's make a new standard called XHTML Strict which adds *no* new features to the old standard, which doesn't work with the majority of web analytics packages out there, and which adds more complication for browser makers!" "Good idea!"</p><p>What a gigantic waste of time and effort-- and now poor browser makers have to support a standard that's completely pointless, and (even worse) was completely pointless even when it was current. Not that the W3C wasting time and effort on pointless things is anything new, but eh.</p><p>And now my obligatory "I told you so": I told you so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem is that everybody dropped HTML to work on XHTML in the first place : " Hey , I know !
Let 's make a new standard called XHTML Strict which adds * no * new features to the old standard , which does n't work with the majority of web analytics packages out there , and which adds more complication for browser makers !
" " Good idea !
" What a gigantic waste of time and effort-- and now poor browser makers have to support a standard that 's completely pointless , and ( even worse ) was completely pointless even when it was current .
Not that the W3C wasting time and effort on pointless things is anything new , but eh.And now my obligatory " I told you so " : I told you so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem is that everybody dropped HTML to work on XHTML in the first place:"Hey, I know!
Let's make a new standard called XHTML Strict which adds *no* new features to the old standard, which doesn't work with the majority of web analytics packages out there, and which adds more complication for browser makers!
" "Good idea!
"What a gigantic waste of time and effort-- and now poor browser makers have to support a standard that's completely pointless, and (even worse) was completely pointless even when it was current.
Not that the W3C wasting time and effort on pointless things is anything new, but eh.And now my obligatory "I told you so": I told you so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573851</id>
	<title>Nice but keep your stupid opinions out of it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246649400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Looks like with HTML 5, we'll get the best of both worlds." you say. Well shut up with your opinions. If I think it gives me the best of both worlds I'll decide for myself.</p><p>Sodding slashvertisements and astrofurfing scoundrels. The place is riddled with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Looks like with HTML 5 , we 'll get the best of both worlds .
" you say .
Well shut up with your opinions .
If I think it gives me the best of both worlds I 'll decide for myself.Sodding slashvertisements and astrofurfing scoundrels .
The place is riddled with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Looks like with HTML 5, we'll get the best of both worlds.
" you say.
Well shut up with your opinions.
If I think it gives me the best of both worlds I'll decide for myself.Sodding slashvertisements and astrofurfing scoundrels.
The place is riddled with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28577975</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246645740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Totally wrong. One of the most important rules in software is: "be liberal in what you accept, and strict in what you output."</i></p><p>Totally retarded. We need rules to limit what is accepted because computers are not yet able to read minds. How should a computer interpret the following date?</p><p>01-01-01</p><p>January 1, 2001? 2001 January 1? 1 January 2001? etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally wrong .
One of the most important rules in software is : " be liberal in what you accept , and strict in what you output .
" Totally retarded .
We need rules to limit what is accepted because computers are not yet able to read minds .
How should a computer interpret the following date ? 01-01-01January 1 , 2001 ?
2001 January 1 ?
1 January 2001 ?
etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally wrong.
One of the most important rules in software is: "be liberal in what you accept, and strict in what you output.
"Totally retarded.
We need rules to limit what is accepted because computers are not yet able to read minds.
How should a computer interpret the following date?01-01-01January 1, 2001?
2001 January 1?
1 January 2001?
etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575325</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>ivucica</author>
	<datestamp>1246617240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cleanliness without the target attribute? Excuse me? Fugly javascript so you can open in a new window, which doesn't work with NoScript, is clean? How about iframes? Erm, yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cleanliness without the target attribute ?
Excuse me ?
Fugly javascript so you can open in a new window , which does n't work with NoScript , is clean ?
How about iframes ?
Erm , yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cleanliness without the target attribute?
Excuse me?
Fugly javascript so you can open in a new window, which doesn't work with NoScript, is clean?
How about iframes?
Erm, yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575961</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>joost</author>
	<datestamp>1246622820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You, sir/madam, are clearly not a professional web developer. Writing clean valid xhtml Strict is what I do every single day and not it is not "hard". OMG! I need to like close my LI wtfsrsly?! So HARD! Grow up please or get a different job/hobby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You , sir/madam , are clearly not a professional web developer .
Writing clean valid xhtml Strict is what I do every single day and not it is not " hard " .
OMG ! I need to like close my LI wtfsrsly ? !
So HARD !
Grow up please or get a different job/hobby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, sir/madam, are clearly not a professional web developer.
Writing clean valid xhtml Strict is what I do every single day and not it is not "hard".
OMG! I need to like close my LI wtfsrsly?!
So HARD!
Grow up please or get a different job/hobby.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573557</id>
	<title>Re:I'm disappointed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246647420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; XHTML has some great features, notably the ability to embed MathML and SVG in it</p><p>Here's an HTML5 snippet using the non-XML serialization that shows an "x squared" when parsed with the new HTML5 parser in Firefox:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; x<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2</p><p>I'm not sure how much more "embed MathML" you could get here...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>If you wanted to put xmlns attributes on the  and , with the XHTML and MathML namespaces respectively, you could use this snippet as either the XML or non-XML serialization, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; XHTML has some great features , notably the ability to embed MathML and SVG in itHere 's an HTML5 snippet using the non-XML serialization that shows an " x squared " when parsed with the new HTML5 parser in Firefox :             x             2I 'm not sure how much more " embed MathML " you could get here... ; ) If you wanted to put xmlns attributes on the and , with the XHTML and MathML namespaces respectively , you could use this snippet as either the XML or non-XML serialization , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; XHTML has some great features, notably the ability to embed MathML and SVG in itHere's an HTML5 snippet using the non-XML serialization that shows an "x squared" when parsed with the new HTML5 parser in Firefox:
            x
            2I'm not sure how much more "embed MathML" you could get here... ;)If you wanted to put xmlns attributes on the  and , with the XHTML and MathML namespaces respectively, you could use this snippet as either the XML or non-XML serialization, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574779</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246613280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know a lot of very mediocre web developers, you mean.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know a lot of very mediocre web developers , you mean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know a lot of very mediocre web developers, you mean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573749</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a few people are confused...</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1246648620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't understand why they don't just go ahead and drop the SGML parts of HTML 5</p></div><p>If they were going to do that, they might as well have dropped the HTML bits of HTML 5 and, on the blank sheet of paper, wrote "WRITE AN XML SCHEMA THAT MATCHES YOUR DOCUMENT AND THEN FORMAT IT WITH CSS"</p><p>(Just a few details missing, like I don't see how to embed Javascript...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why they do n't just go ahead and drop the SGML parts of HTML 5If they were going to do that , they might as well have dropped the HTML bits of HTML 5 and , on the blank sheet of paper , wrote " WRITE AN XML SCHEMA THAT MATCHES YOUR DOCUMENT AND THEN FORMAT IT WITH CSS " ( Just a few details missing , like I do n't see how to embed Javascript... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why they don't just go ahead and drop the SGML parts of HTML 5If they were going to do that, they might as well have dropped the HTML bits of HTML 5 and, on the blank sheet of paper, wrote "WRITE AN XML SCHEMA THAT MATCHES YOUR DOCUMENT AND THEN FORMAT IT WITH CSS"(Just a few details missing, like I don't see how to embed Javascript...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574933</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Tacvek</author>
	<datestamp>1246614240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HTML5 comes in two forms.</p><p>It comes in an SGML-inspired format, that is not strictly SGML but matches real word HTML almost exactly. The big difference from HTML4 besides the new tags is that it does not use a DTD, nor does it support the shortag features of SGML, with the exception of the short attribute feature. Thus "&lt;title/&lt;/&lt;body/".</p><p>(Yes, that has three open brackets, zero close brackets, and 3 slashes) is not valid HTML5, despite being valid HTML4. (At least once you add the DTD).</p><p>There is also an XHTML form, which may informally be called XHTML5. Except for the new tags, this is pretty much identical to XHTML 1. In some ways this is the prefered form of HTML5, being that the other form does not support namespaces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 comes in two forms.It comes in an SGML-inspired format , that is not strictly SGML but matches real word HTML almost exactly .
The big difference from HTML4 besides the new tags is that it does not use a DTD , nor does it support the shortag features of SGML , with the exception of the short attribute feature .
Thus " ( Yes , that has three open brackets , zero close brackets , and 3 slashes ) is not valid HTML5 , despite being valid HTML4 .
( At least once you add the DTD ) .There is also an XHTML form , which may informally be called XHTML5 .
Except for the new tags , this is pretty much identical to XHTML 1 .
In some ways this is the prefered form of HTML5 , being that the other form does not support namespaces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5 comes in two forms.It comes in an SGML-inspired format, that is not strictly SGML but matches real word HTML almost exactly.
The big difference from HTML4 besides the new tags is that it does not use a DTD, nor does it support the shortag features of SGML, with the exception of the short attribute feature.
Thus "(Yes, that has three open brackets, zero close brackets, and 3 slashes) is not valid HTML5, despite being valid HTML4.
(At least once you add the DTD).There is also an XHTML form, which may informally be called XHTML5.
Except for the new tags, this is pretty much identical to XHTML 1.
In some ways this is the prefered form of HTML5, being that the other form does not support namespaces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572951</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>Tanktalus</author>
	<datestamp>1246643580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Getting a web page clean is a <b>hard</b> problem<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... when you accept user input in something approaching HTML format, like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. does.  Or we can all be forever subjected to incomplete wiki-style markup that can only do about half of what the user wants.  I find myself constantly going back to html in mediawiki to get the formating I want - whether mediawiki supports it or not, I don't know, because at some point the wiki markup gets to be just as convoluted and hard-to-read as html, so I use HTML.  Other times, I know mediawiki can't do it, so we need to enter in HTML.  And mediawiki is probably one of the better user-content web services out there (from a completeness perspective).</p><p>I can just see it now: php or mod\_perl or CGI apps linking against WebKit or KHTML or xulrunner or whatever just to properly parse out the user input and clean it up, just so that another browser doesn't choke.</p><p>I think we're stuck with broken markup for a long while.</p><p>Now, if there were a way to "mark" a section of HTML as being "user-content" such that the parsing could be relaxed for small sections, we might get somewhere further.  Then again, many lazy developers will mark their entire documents as user-content, and not fix their code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting a web page clean is a hard problem ... when you accept user input in something approaching HTML format , like / .
does. Or we can all be forever subjected to incomplete wiki-style markup that can only do about half of what the user wants .
I find myself constantly going back to html in mediawiki to get the formating I want - whether mediawiki supports it or not , I do n't know , because at some point the wiki markup gets to be just as convoluted and hard-to-read as html , so I use HTML .
Other times , I know mediawiki ca n't do it , so we need to enter in HTML .
And mediawiki is probably one of the better user-content web services out there ( from a completeness perspective ) .I can just see it now : php or mod \ _perl or CGI apps linking against WebKit or KHTML or xulrunner or whatever just to properly parse out the user input and clean it up , just so that another browser does n't choke.I think we 're stuck with broken markup for a long while.Now , if there were a way to " mark " a section of HTML as being " user-content " such that the parsing could be relaxed for small sections , we might get somewhere further .
Then again , many lazy developers will mark their entire documents as user-content , and not fix their code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting a web page clean is a hard problem ... when you accept user input in something approaching HTML format, like /.
does.  Or we can all be forever subjected to incomplete wiki-style markup that can only do about half of what the user wants.
I find myself constantly going back to html in mediawiki to get the formating I want - whether mediawiki supports it or not, I don't know, because at some point the wiki markup gets to be just as convoluted and hard-to-read as html, so I use HTML.
Other times, I know mediawiki can't do it, so we need to enter in HTML.
And mediawiki is probably one of the better user-content web services out there (from a completeness perspective).I can just see it now: php or mod\_perl or CGI apps linking against WebKit or KHTML or xulrunner or whatever just to properly parse out the user input and clean it up, just so that another browser doesn't choke.I think we're stuck with broken markup for a long while.Now, if there were a way to "mark" a section of HTML as being "user-content" such that the parsing could be relaxed for small sections, we might get somewhere further.
Then again, many lazy developers will mark their entire documents as user-content, and not fix their code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572773</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>DoktorSeven</author>
	<datestamp>1246642560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  XHTML is not that hard to get right, and it makes a web page "clean" in that there doesn't have to be any guessing going on in the browser to figure out what a page designer wants.</p><p>The best thing in the world would have been browsers adapting a rigid HTML standard to begin with and browsers simply saying "Sorry, this page has invalid HTML" on bad pages.</p><p>I can dream, can't I?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
XHTML is not that hard to get right , and it makes a web page " clean " in that there does n't have to be any guessing going on in the browser to figure out what a page designer wants.The best thing in the world would have been browsers adapting a rigid HTML standard to begin with and browsers simply saying " Sorry , this page has invalid HTML " on bad pages.I can dream , ca n't I ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
XHTML is not that hard to get right, and it makes a web page "clean" in that there doesn't have to be any guessing going on in the browser to figure out what a page designer wants.The best thing in the world would have been browsers adapting a rigid HTML standard to begin with and browsers simply saying "Sorry, this page has invalid HTML" on bad pages.I can dream, can't I?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578497</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>msclrhd</author>
	<datestamp>1246740120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It means that if you are wanting to process html (e.g. convert it to text, or transform it's markup to something else), xhtml is far easier as you can take any of the gazillion xml parsers that are available and use either SAX, DOM or XSLT to do what you want.</p><p>With non-xml html content, you need to have your own html parser to read the html content and understand it. This means either running it through htmltidy, embedding htmltidy into your application or using another (possibly hand-written) html parser.</p><p>If you are dynamically generating html content, doing so programatically via string manipulation is more error prone than either generating the html from DOM manipulation, or (better yet) generating xml via DOM -- expressing the data that you are using -- and then using an XSLT file to transform it to html.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It means that if you are wanting to process html ( e.g .
convert it to text , or transform it 's markup to something else ) , xhtml is far easier as you can take any of the gazillion xml parsers that are available and use either SAX , DOM or XSLT to do what you want.With non-xml html content , you need to have your own html parser to read the html content and understand it .
This means either running it through htmltidy , embedding htmltidy into your application or using another ( possibly hand-written ) html parser.If you are dynamically generating html content , doing so programatically via string manipulation is more error prone than either generating the html from DOM manipulation , or ( better yet ) generating xml via DOM -- expressing the data that you are using -- and then using an XSLT file to transform it to html .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It means that if you are wanting to process html (e.g.
convert it to text, or transform it's markup to something else), xhtml is far easier as you can take any of the gazillion xml parsers that are available and use either SAX, DOM or XSLT to do what you want.With non-xml html content, you need to have your own html parser to read the html content and understand it.
This means either running it through htmltidy, embedding htmltidy into your application or using another (possibly hand-written) html parser.If you are dynamically generating html content, doing so programatically via string manipulation is more error prone than either generating the html from DOM manipulation, or (better yet) generating xml via DOM -- expressing the data that you are using -- and then using an XSLT file to transform it to html.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28577135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573499</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246647000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Getting a web page clean is a hard problem<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... when you accept user input in something approaching HTML format, like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. does.</p></div><p>No it isn't.  You should not ever, ever, be inserting user-provided HTML directly in to a document.  If you do, then well done, you've just created a cross-site scripting vulnerability.  And you've let pranksters submit &amp;lt!-- and hide half of your page.  </p><p>
The correct way of handling user-provided HTML is to parse it with an HTML parser, construct a DOM tree, navigate this stripping out any tags that aren't on your whitelisted set, and then use the result.  Most of the time, you want to run it through a very relaxed HTML parser because hand-typed HTML in a web form is likely to be full of errors. When you dump the DOM tree as HTML, it can be XHTML 1, HTML 3.2, or any other dialect you want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting a web page clean is a hard problem ... when you accept user input in something approaching HTML format , like / .
does.No it is n't .
You should not ever , ever , be inserting user-provided HTML directly in to a document .
If you do , then well done , you 've just created a cross-site scripting vulnerability .
And you 've let pranksters submit &amp;lt ! -- and hide half of your page .
The correct way of handling user-provided HTML is to parse it with an HTML parser , construct a DOM tree , navigate this stripping out any tags that are n't on your whitelisted set , and then use the result .
Most of the time , you want to run it through a very relaxed HTML parser because hand-typed HTML in a web form is likely to be full of errors .
When you dump the DOM tree as HTML , it can be XHTML 1 , HTML 3.2 , or any other dialect you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Getting a web page clean is a hard problem ... when you accept user input in something approaching HTML format, like /.
does.No it isn't.
You should not ever, ever, be inserting user-provided HTML directly in to a document.
If you do, then well done, you've just created a cross-site scripting vulnerability.
And you've let pranksters submit &amp;lt!-- and hide half of your page.
The correct way of handling user-provided HTML is to parse it with an HTML parser, construct a DOM tree, navigate this stripping out any tags that aren't on your whitelisted set, and then use the result.
Most of the time, you want to run it through a very relaxed HTML parser because hand-typed HTML in a web form is likely to be full of errors.
When you dump the DOM tree as HTML, it can be XHTML 1, HTML 3.2, or any other dialect you want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574825</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246613580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SGML doesn't give you any more "freedom" than XML, it's just more difficult to validate, so most web-browsers don't use validating parsers for HTML. When some HTML is missing an end tag (or even a start tag), the parser is supposed to use the schema to decide whether it is permissable, and insert one automatically. XML does not have this ability, so does require such complicated logic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SGML does n't give you any more " freedom " than XML , it 's just more difficult to validate , so most web-browsers do n't use validating parsers for HTML .
When some HTML is missing an end tag ( or even a start tag ) , the parser is supposed to use the schema to decide whether it is permissable , and insert one automatically .
XML does not have this ability , so does require such complicated logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SGML doesn't give you any more "freedom" than XML, it's just more difficult to validate, so most web-browsers don't use validating parsers for HTML.
When some HTML is missing an end tag (or even a start tag), the parser is supposed to use the schema to decide whether it is permissable, and insert one automatically.
XML does not have this ability, so does require such complicated logic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572303</id>
	<title>Off Topic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246639560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What exactly is "The Maker" Achievement?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly is " The Maker " Achievement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly is "The Maker" Achievement?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572639</id>
	<title>Re:CSS 3 spec</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246641900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hear Hear. I've been waiting for RGBA and embedded fonts for years. Yes, I know I<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/can/ use it now, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/most/ browsers will accept CSS3, but that's not good enough for me. I see no purpose in adopting a standard before it has become standardised. So, Sir Tim, if you are reading this: hear my plea and please hurry up with CSS3. HTML5 looks interesting, and looks like it has lots of new toys, but that's no good if I still have to use image-hacks to form semi-transparent backgrounds and make items appear in the fonts I want.</p><p>On to the main topic, I see this as a great step backwards. Are people really that afraid of the X in front of XHTML? Or are they worried it's inferior because it has a lower number next to it? From the FAQ it does look like they aren't reverting to SGML which is a good thing, but makes me wonder what the point is. Surely then, this makes HTML5 XHTML2, and not the successor to HTML4.01.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear Hear .
I 've been waiting for RGBA and embedded fonts for years .
Yes , I know I /can/ use it now , and /most/ browsers will accept CSS3 , but that 's not good enough for me .
I see no purpose in adopting a standard before it has become standardised .
So , Sir Tim , if you are reading this : hear my plea and please hurry up with CSS3 .
HTML5 looks interesting , and looks like it has lots of new toys , but that 's no good if I still have to use image-hacks to form semi-transparent backgrounds and make items appear in the fonts I want.On to the main topic , I see this as a great step backwards .
Are people really that afraid of the X in front of XHTML ?
Or are they worried it 's inferior because it has a lower number next to it ?
From the FAQ it does look like they are n't reverting to SGML which is a good thing , but makes me wonder what the point is .
Surely then , this makes HTML5 XHTML2 , and not the successor to HTML4.01 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear Hear.
I've been waiting for RGBA and embedded fonts for years.
Yes, I know I /can/ use it now, and /most/ browsers will accept CSS3, but that's not good enough for me.
I see no purpose in adopting a standard before it has become standardised.
So, Sir Tim, if you are reading this: hear my plea and please hurry up with CSS3.
HTML5 looks interesting, and looks like it has lots of new toys, but that's no good if I still have to use image-hacks to form semi-transparent backgrounds and make items appear in the fonts I want.On to the main topic, I see this as a great step backwards.
Are people really that afraid of the X in front of XHTML?
Or are they worried it's inferior because it has a lower number next to it?
From the FAQ it does look like they aren't reverting to SGML which is a good thing, but makes me wonder what the point is.
Surely then, this makes HTML5 XHTML2, and not the successor to HTML4.01.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575827</id>
	<title>HTML5: Just Say NO</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1246621500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; so get on the HTML 5 bandwagon now.<br><br>Not gonna happen, fanboy.<br><br>HTML 5 takes entirely too many steps in the wrong directions.  I'm not interested in going there.  I'm *definitely* never going back to non-wellformed SGML-oriented markup, and that's just for starters.<br><br>Though, to be honest, I wasn't real excited about XHTML2 either.  Not so many steps in *wrong* directions, but plenty of *unnecessary* changes.  Meh.  I'm not really going to mourn its loss.<br><br>What I really want is XHTML 1.0.1, the only difference from 1.0 being that you can put block-level elements within a paragraph.  That's the only change I really wanted.<br><br>So hey, I can live with 1.0.  I'll just keep using &lt;div class="p"&gt; like I have been.  It's a kludge, but it works.<br><br>Or maybe I'll just study up a bit and end up going to straight XML with a custom namespace.  Then I can have my block-level elements inside of paragraphs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; so get on the HTML 5 bandwagon now.Not gon na happen , fanboy.HTML 5 takes entirely too many steps in the wrong directions .
I 'm not interested in going there .
I 'm * definitely * never going back to non-wellformed SGML-oriented markup , and that 's just for starters.Though , to be honest , I was n't real excited about XHTML2 either .
Not so many steps in * wrong * directions , but plenty of * unnecessary * changes .
Meh. I 'm not really going to mourn its loss.What I really want is XHTML 1.0.1 , the only difference from 1.0 being that you can put block-level elements within a paragraph .
That 's the only change I really wanted.So hey , I can live with 1.0 .
I 'll just keep using like I have been .
It 's a kludge , but it works.Or maybe I 'll just study up a bit and end up going to straight XML with a custom namespace .
Then I can have my block-level elements inside of paragraphs : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; so get on the HTML 5 bandwagon now.Not gonna happen, fanboy.HTML 5 takes entirely too many steps in the wrong directions.
I'm not interested in going there.
I'm *definitely* never going back to non-wellformed SGML-oriented markup, and that's just for starters.Though, to be honest, I wasn't real excited about XHTML2 either.
Not so many steps in *wrong* directions, but plenty of *unnecessary* changes.
Meh.  I'm not really going to mourn its loss.What I really want is XHTML 1.0.1, the only difference from 1.0 being that you can put block-level elements within a paragraph.
That's the only change I really wanted.So hey, I can live with 1.0.
I'll just keep using  like I have been.
It's a kludge, but it works.Or maybe I'll just study up a bit and end up going to straight XML with a custom namespace.
Then I can have my block-level elements inside of paragraphs :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572261</id>
	<title>Well this is a surprise...</title>
	<author>Xeriar</author>
	<datestamp>1246639320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much like the sun rising in the east tomorrow. I never quite understood what w3c thought it was doing trying to override browser developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much like the sun rising in the east tomorrow .
I never quite understood what w3c thought it was doing trying to override browser developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much like the sun rising in the east tomorrow.
I never quite understood what w3c thought it was doing trying to override browser developers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573011</id>
	<title>Rendering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246644000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean that someday<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. will actually render properly in a browser?  I used IE, FF, Opera, and Safari all regularly.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. does not reneder 100\% in any of them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that someday / .
will actually render properly in a browser ?
I used IE , FF , Opera , and Safari all regularly .
/. does not reneder 100 \ % in any of them : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that someday /.
will actually render properly in a browser?
I used IE, FF, Opera, and Safari all regularly.
/. does not reneder 100\% in any of them :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28579071</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>wootest</author>
	<datestamp>1246707900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Right now, no browser will ever come close, and the specs are already 10x more complex than will ever get implemented, but adding "guess what the user meant!" crap just sucks the life out of any progress that these rendering engines have to do. IE8 punted and included IE7-mode -- that's how bad it's getting.</i></p><p>No, IE had stayed such a train wreck for so long that when they tried improving it they had compatibility pushback. Improving is not the problem; improving and maintaining compatibility with a neglected and inefficient engine (completely, by the way, of their own making) is.</p><p>Postel's law's not debunked by "Martian Headsets". I like Joel Spolsky, really, but "Martian Headsets" is maybe the worst thing he's ever written. Microsoft put themselves in this mess with Internet Explorer, and the road ahead is *not* to say that we should just hold everything, or to preclude progress because it's so damn hard. Think about what happens on a sub-atomic layer just inside your CPU every damn second; that's damn hard to set up, and we still made it work from the ground up. The correct course of action is to *do something about it*, and that will be painful for everyone, but the reason it's so much more painful for Microsoft than for any other browser vendor is, simply, "Microsoft".</p><p>The reason HTML5 defines tokenization and parsing is because it's meant to level the playing field. You're not angry because the rendering will, in the face of real world applications, turn complex, you're angry because it's already complex in the spec. You should be happy, because the reason it's already complex in the spec is because it already works in the real world! You certainly could, but there's not much left to actually amend the rules with, which makes HTML5 a damn good standard -- wasn't one of Joel's points that the reason HTML is so frustrating is because so much is left to the imagination or that it's all but impossible to build interoperable, perfectly implemented rendering?</p><p>Furthermore, I'd like to see one editor that neglects to open any text file with broken UTF-8. (I'm sure they exist somewhere, but I haven't ever seen that happen, and I've worked with some real messes.) UTF-8 is a lot easier and the spec is a lot more rigid, but even so you can't just fail in a real application. If you still believe in Postel's law as applied to XHTML, I encourage you to read <a href="http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/01/14/thought\_experiment" title="diveintomark.org">http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/01/14/thought\_experiment</a> [diveintomark.org] . "Well, the world is just going to have to get more perfect" has repeatedly turned out to not be a workable strategy. (As long as "the world" actually means "the world". Requiring strictness in a closed, scoped system where helpful recovery actually *would* mean disaster is certainly okay.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now , no browser will ever come close , and the specs are already 10x more complex than will ever get implemented , but adding " guess what the user meant !
" crap just sucks the life out of any progress that these rendering engines have to do .
IE8 punted and included IE7-mode -- that 's how bad it 's getting.No , IE had stayed such a train wreck for so long that when they tried improving it they had compatibility pushback .
Improving is not the problem ; improving and maintaining compatibility with a neglected and inefficient engine ( completely , by the way , of their own making ) is.Postel 's law 's not debunked by " Martian Headsets " .
I like Joel Spolsky , really , but " Martian Headsets " is maybe the worst thing he 's ever written .
Microsoft put themselves in this mess with Internet Explorer , and the road ahead is * not * to say that we should just hold everything , or to preclude progress because it 's so damn hard .
Think about what happens on a sub-atomic layer just inside your CPU every damn second ; that 's damn hard to set up , and we still made it work from the ground up .
The correct course of action is to * do something about it * , and that will be painful for everyone , but the reason it 's so much more painful for Microsoft than for any other browser vendor is , simply , " Microsoft " .The reason HTML5 defines tokenization and parsing is because it 's meant to level the playing field .
You 're not angry because the rendering will , in the face of real world applications , turn complex , you 're angry because it 's already complex in the spec .
You should be happy , because the reason it 's already complex in the spec is because it already works in the real world !
You certainly could , but there 's not much left to actually amend the rules with , which makes HTML5 a damn good standard -- was n't one of Joel 's points that the reason HTML is so frustrating is because so much is left to the imagination or that it 's all but impossible to build interoperable , perfectly implemented rendering ? Furthermore , I 'd like to see one editor that neglects to open any text file with broken UTF-8 .
( I 'm sure they exist somewhere , but I have n't ever seen that happen , and I 've worked with some real messes .
) UTF-8 is a lot easier and the spec is a lot more rigid , but even so you ca n't just fail in a real application .
If you still believe in Postel 's law as applied to XHTML , I encourage you to read http : //diveintomark.org/archives/2004/01/14/thought \ _experiment [ diveintomark.org ] .
" Well , the world is just going to have to get more perfect " has repeatedly turned out to not be a workable strategy .
( As long as " the world " actually means " the world " .
Requiring strictness in a closed , scoped system where helpful recovery actually * would * mean disaster is certainly okay .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now, no browser will ever come close, and the specs are already 10x more complex than will ever get implemented, but adding "guess what the user meant!
" crap just sucks the life out of any progress that these rendering engines have to do.
IE8 punted and included IE7-mode -- that's how bad it's getting.No, IE had stayed such a train wreck for so long that when they tried improving it they had compatibility pushback.
Improving is not the problem; improving and maintaining compatibility with a neglected and inefficient engine (completely, by the way, of their own making) is.Postel's law's not debunked by "Martian Headsets".
I like Joel Spolsky, really, but "Martian Headsets" is maybe the worst thing he's ever written.
Microsoft put themselves in this mess with Internet Explorer, and the road ahead is *not* to say that we should just hold everything, or to preclude progress because it's so damn hard.
Think about what happens on a sub-atomic layer just inside your CPU every damn second; that's damn hard to set up, and we still made it work from the ground up.
The correct course of action is to *do something about it*, and that will be painful for everyone, but the reason it's so much more painful for Microsoft than for any other browser vendor is, simply, "Microsoft".The reason HTML5 defines tokenization and parsing is because it's meant to level the playing field.
You're not angry because the rendering will, in the face of real world applications, turn complex, you're angry because it's already complex in the spec.
You should be happy, because the reason it's already complex in the spec is because it already works in the real world!
You certainly could, but there's not much left to actually amend the rules with, which makes HTML5 a damn good standard -- wasn't one of Joel's points that the reason HTML is so frustrating is because so much is left to the imagination or that it's all but impossible to build interoperable, perfectly implemented rendering?Furthermore, I'd like to see one editor that neglects to open any text file with broken UTF-8.
(I'm sure they exist somewhere, but I haven't ever seen that happen, and I've worked with some real messes.
) UTF-8 is a lot easier and the spec is a lot more rigid, but even so you can't just fail in a real application.
If you still believe in Postel's law as applied to XHTML, I encourage you to read http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/01/14/thought\_experiment [diveintomark.org] .
"Well, the world is just going to have to get more perfect" has repeatedly turned out to not be a workable strategy.
(As long as "the world" actually means "the world".
Requiring strictness in a closed, scoped system where helpful recovery actually *would* mean disaster is certainly okay.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28577135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246645200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main key is, that, while HTML5 is based on the superior SGML (because of more freedom), XHTML had started to enforce strictness and cleanness. This meant the browser did not have to support a ton of typos, just because the editor was a freakin' lazy ass. Imagine a compiler that would eat any typo. Missing brackets, braces, semicolons, object-function separators, completely meaningless semantic messes. HTML4 browsers eat it all.</p><p>It is horrible, and actively supports the dumbing down of people. (Those who want to write websites.)<br>Face it: If they have to, they will learn it. Nobody is too stupid for that. Some just repeat so often that they are stupid, that they actually become stupid. But this can be reversed in exactly the same way. (Ask any psychotherapist about self-fulfilling prophecies.)</p><p>Another great feature of XHTML, was its modularity and cross-language features.<br>You could integrate XHTML, SVG, MathML, etc, into one document. Imagine a P tag inside a SVG circe, containing a math formula, and you begin to understand the sheer power of that concept.</p><p>Now if they implement HTML5 right, and we get the same cleanness that XHTML 1.1 had (Strict only. No transitional shit.), and they add cross-language abilities too (trough SGML), then I'm all for it!<br>But if not, this could be a huge step backwards, into the web development mess of IE6 times!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main key is , that , while HTML5 is based on the superior SGML ( because of more freedom ) , XHTML had started to enforce strictness and cleanness .
This meant the browser did not have to support a ton of typos , just because the editor was a freakin ' lazy ass .
Imagine a compiler that would eat any typo .
Missing brackets , braces , semicolons , object-function separators , completely meaningless semantic messes .
HTML4 browsers eat it all.It is horrible , and actively supports the dumbing down of people .
( Those who want to write websites .
) Face it : If they have to , they will learn it .
Nobody is too stupid for that .
Some just repeat so often that they are stupid , that they actually become stupid .
But this can be reversed in exactly the same way .
( Ask any psychotherapist about self-fulfilling prophecies .
) Another great feature of XHTML , was its modularity and cross-language features.You could integrate XHTML , SVG , MathML , etc , into one document .
Imagine a P tag inside a SVG circe , containing a math formula , and you begin to understand the sheer power of that concept.Now if they implement HTML5 right , and we get the same cleanness that XHTML 1.1 had ( Strict only .
No transitional shit .
) , and they add cross-language abilities too ( trough SGML ) , then I 'm all for it ! But if not , this could be a huge step backwards , into the web development mess of IE6 times !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main key is, that, while HTML5 is based on the superior SGML (because of more freedom), XHTML had started to enforce strictness and cleanness.
This meant the browser did not have to support a ton of typos, just because the editor was a freakin' lazy ass.
Imagine a compiler that would eat any typo.
Missing brackets, braces, semicolons, object-function separators, completely meaningless semantic messes.
HTML4 browsers eat it all.It is horrible, and actively supports the dumbing down of people.
(Those who want to write websites.
)Face it: If they have to, they will learn it.
Nobody is too stupid for that.
Some just repeat so often that they are stupid, that they actually become stupid.
But this can be reversed in exactly the same way.
(Ask any psychotherapist about self-fulfilling prophecies.
)Another great feature of XHTML, was its modularity and cross-language features.You could integrate XHTML, SVG, MathML, etc, into one document.
Imagine a P tag inside a SVG circe, containing a math formula, and you begin to understand the sheer power of that concept.Now if they implement HTML5 right, and we get the same cleanness that XHTML 1.1 had (Strict only.
No transitional shit.
), and they add cross-language abilities too (trough SGML), then I'm all for it!But if not, this could be a huge step backwards, into the web development mess of IE6 times!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572969</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1246643700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>XHTML would have been great standard.</p><p>When fed invalid XHTML, the browser chokes, which would have gone a long way to eliminating much of the crap code, and crap "web developers" out there.<br>I don't see why it's the browsers business to be THAT lenient, and second guess the developer all the time.</p></div><p>The problem is, a lot of web pages today are not a single coherent document, they're a bunch of little code fragments concatenated together (template, content, advertising, etc.).  When coders get sloppy, this can result in invalid markup.  When browsers choke, the content producer may have no idea how to fix the problem - it may not even be their problem.</p><p>What HTML5 tries to do is clearly define exactly how broken markup is supposed to be handled, so all browsers can try to "second guess the developer" in exactly the same way.</p><p>Kudos to Firefox for reigniting the browser war.  In Browser War 2.0, all the major players are striving toward standards compliance, trying to bring their behavior in line with a single unified goal instead of adding their own proprietary features to HTML itself.  Five years from now, when IE6 and IE7 are as distant a memory as IE4 and IE5 are now, web development is going to be a lot easier.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>XHTML would have been great standard.When fed invalid XHTML , the browser chokes , which would have gone a long way to eliminating much of the crap code , and crap " web developers " out there.I do n't see why it 's the browsers business to be THAT lenient , and second guess the developer all the time.The problem is , a lot of web pages today are not a single coherent document , they 're a bunch of little code fragments concatenated together ( template , content , advertising , etc. ) .
When coders get sloppy , this can result in invalid markup .
When browsers choke , the content producer may have no idea how to fix the problem - it may not even be their problem.What HTML5 tries to do is clearly define exactly how broken markup is supposed to be handled , so all browsers can try to " second guess the developer " in exactly the same way.Kudos to Firefox for reigniting the browser war .
In Browser War 2.0 , all the major players are striving toward standards compliance , trying to bring their behavior in line with a single unified goal instead of adding their own proprietary features to HTML itself .
Five years from now , when IE6 and IE7 are as distant a memory as IE4 and IE5 are now , web development is going to be a lot easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XHTML would have been great standard.When fed invalid XHTML, the browser chokes, which would have gone a long way to eliminating much of the crap code, and crap "web developers" out there.I don't see why it's the browsers business to be THAT lenient, and second guess the developer all the time.The problem is, a lot of web pages today are not a single coherent document, they're a bunch of little code fragments concatenated together (template, content, advertising, etc.).
When coders get sloppy, this can result in invalid markup.
When browsers choke, the content producer may have no idea how to fix the problem - it may not even be their problem.What HTML5 tries to do is clearly define exactly how broken markup is supposed to be handled, so all browsers can try to "second guess the developer" in exactly the same way.Kudos to Firefox for reigniting the browser war.
In Browser War 2.0, all the major players are striving toward standards compliance, trying to bring their behavior in line with a single unified goal instead of adding their own proprietary features to HTML itself.
Five years from now, when IE6 and IE7 are as distant a memory as IE4 and IE5 are now, web development is going to be a lot easier.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572541</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246641240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is one of the biggest reasons xhtml was never widely adopted.</p><p>Microsoft screwing up the mime types is also a big one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of the biggest reasons xhtml was never widely adopted.Microsoft screwing up the mime types is also a big one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of the biggest reasons xhtml was never widely adopted.Microsoft screwing up the mime types is also a big one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572841</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1246642920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But, XHTML has corrected many wrong thing that HTML developpers used to do.</p></div><p>No it hasn't!  Writing valid code (be it HTML 4.01, XHTML, or HTML 5) and checking it with a <a href="http://validator.w3.org/" title="w3.org">validator</a> [w3.org] is what has corrected many wrong things that HTML developers used to do.  Valid HTML 4.01 is still just as legitimate as XHTML ever was.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But , XHTML has corrected many wrong thing that HTML developpers used to do.No it has n't !
Writing valid code ( be it HTML 4.01 , XHTML , or HTML 5 ) and checking it with a validator [ w3.org ] is what has corrected many wrong things that HTML developers used to do .
Valid HTML 4.01 is still just as legitimate as XHTML ever was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, XHTML has corrected many wrong thing that HTML developpers used to do.No it hasn't!
Writing valid code (be it HTML 4.01, XHTML, or HTML 5) and checking it with a validator [w3.org] is what has corrected many wrong things that HTML developers used to do.
Valid HTML 4.01 is still just as legitimate as XHTML ever was.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572405</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>ThePromenader</author>
	<datestamp>1246640280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ditto. XHTML is just another "combined technology" term like DHTML (although standardised) imho; it was an incomplete compromise between two still-developing technologies.</p><p>XHTML's demise was a natural one. HTML is the foremost "static" web language, and has been for decades already; it is only normal that the "best" of other lesser-used languages be integrated into it to make a more performant protocol whole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ditto .
XHTML is just another " combined technology " term like DHTML ( although standardised ) imho ; it was an incomplete compromise between two still-developing technologies.XHTML 's demise was a natural one .
HTML is the foremost " static " web language , and has been for decades already ; it is only normal that the " best " of other lesser-used languages be integrated into it to make a more performant protocol whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ditto.
XHTML is just another "combined technology" term like DHTML (although standardised) imho; it was an incomplete compromise between two still-developing technologies.XHTML's demise was a natural one.
HTML is the foremost "static" web language, and has been for decades already; it is only normal that the "best" of other lesser-used languages be integrated into it to make a more performant protocol whole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578183</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246648560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Creating pages does not require typing bare HTML. These people should be using GUI tools that manage the markup for them. If a person doesn't understand how to write proper markup, there's no excuse for them to continue writing bad markup and making everyone else suffer for it. What they should be doing is typing up their page in Word, clicking buttons to bold or italicize or underline, clicking and dragging to create tables, and saving as HTML.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Creating pages does not require typing bare HTML .
These people should be using GUI tools that manage the markup for them .
If a person does n't understand how to write proper markup , there 's no excuse for them to continue writing bad markup and making everyone else suffer for it .
What they should be doing is typing up their page in Word , clicking buttons to bold or italicize or underline , clicking and dragging to create tables , and saving as HTML .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Creating pages does not require typing bare HTML.
These people should be using GUI tools that manage the markup for them.
If a person doesn't understand how to write proper markup, there's no excuse for them to continue writing bad markup and making everyone else suffer for it.
What they should be doing is typing up their page in Word, clicking buttons to bold or italicize or underline, clicking and dragging to create tables, and saving as HTML.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575589</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>Haeleth</author>
	<datestamp>1246619280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lazy?  Writing messy HTML takes <i>more</i> effort than writing clean XHTML.  If you use a decent editor -- one that can take advantage of the structure and parseability of XML to provide validation, auto-completion, etc. on the fly -- then XHTML practically writes itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lazy ?
Writing messy HTML takes more effort than writing clean XHTML .
If you use a decent editor -- one that can take advantage of the structure and parseability of XML to provide validation , auto-completion , etc .
on the fly -- then XHTML practically writes itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lazy?
Writing messy HTML takes more effort than writing clean XHTML.
If you use a decent editor -- one that can take advantage of the structure and parseability of XML to provide validation, auto-completion, etc.
on the fly -- then XHTML practically writes itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574471</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a few people are confused...</title>
	<author>zigurat667</author>
	<datestamp>1246654320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like your whishes were heard <br>
<i>Some earlier versions of HTML (in particular from HTML2 to HTML4) were based on SGML and used SGML parsing rules. However, few (if any) web browsers ever implemented true SGML parsing for HTML documents; the only user agents to strictly handle HTML as an SGML application have historically been validators. The resulting confusion &#226;" with validators claiming documents to have one representation while widely deployed Web browsers interoperably implemented a different representation &#226;" has wasted decades of productivity. This version of HTML thus returns to a non-SGML basis.</i> <br>
from the <a href="http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">HTML 5 specs</a> [w3.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like your whishes were heard Some earlier versions of HTML ( in particular from HTML2 to HTML4 ) were based on SGML and used SGML parsing rules .
However , few ( if any ) web browsers ever implemented true SGML parsing for HTML documents ; the only user agents to strictly handle HTML as an SGML application have historically been validators .
The resulting confusion   " with validators claiming documents to have one representation while widely deployed Web browsers interoperably implemented a different representation   " has wasted decades of productivity .
This version of HTML thus returns to a non-SGML basis .
from the HTML 5 specs [ w3.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like your whishes were heard 
Some earlier versions of HTML (in particular from HTML2 to HTML4) were based on SGML and used SGML parsing rules.
However, few (if any) web browsers ever implemented true SGML parsing for HTML documents; the only user agents to strictly handle HTML as an SGML application have historically been validators.
The resulting confusion â" with validators claiming documents to have one representation while widely deployed Web browsers interoperably implemented a different representation â" has wasted decades of productivity.
This version of HTML thus returns to a non-SGML basis.
from the HTML 5 specs [w3.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578503</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>ryan\_fung</author>
	<datestamp>1246740180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But I believe most people shouldn't need to write raw HTML. Things like blog and CMS are are invented for the masses who don't want to invest the time needed to do HTML properly.<br><br>With the growth in popularity of things "Web 2.0" things like YouTube, flickr, wiki, blogs etc, I don't think people really need to write raw HTML to share their content anymore. I think those who still write raw HTML (i.e. those who do it professionally) have no excuse not to do it properly. It's not that hard after all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I believe most people should n't need to write raw HTML .
Things like blog and CMS are are invented for the masses who do n't want to invest the time needed to do HTML properly.With the growth in popularity of things " Web 2.0 " things like YouTube , flickr , wiki , blogs etc , I do n't think people really need to write raw HTML to share their content anymore .
I think those who still write raw HTML ( i.e .
those who do it professionally ) have no excuse not to do it properly .
It 's not that hard after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I believe most people shouldn't need to write raw HTML.
Things like blog and CMS are are invented for the masses who don't want to invest the time needed to do HTML properly.With the growth in popularity of things "Web 2.0" things like YouTube, flickr, wiki, blogs etc, I don't think people really need to write raw HTML to share their content anymore.
I think those who still write raw HTML (i.e.
those who do it professionally) have no excuse not to do it properly.
It's not that hard after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572971</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1246643700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A key feature of html5 is that is specifies the algorithms to use when normalizing poorly formed markup. It doesn't eliminate ambiguous cases, but it gets rid of many of them, meaning that the presentation and DOM should almost always be the same, regardless of the browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A key feature of html5 is that is specifies the algorithms to use when normalizing poorly formed markup .
It does n't eliminate ambiguous cases , but it gets rid of many of them , meaning that the presentation and DOM should almost always be the same , regardless of the browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A key feature of html5 is that is specifies the algorithms to use when normalizing poorly formed markup.
It doesn't eliminate ambiguous cases, but it gets rid of many of them, meaning that the presentation and DOM should almost always be the same, regardless of the browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573583</id>
	<title>Re:Rendering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246647600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>CSS defines how something is rendered.  HTML merely define tage to endow blocks of text with certain properties.  For instance, this block of text might be a caption.  This block of text might be a title.  This block of text might just be text that is free to flow as needed.  The rendering is 100\% up to the the browser.  If the browse want to render a title with zigbats in pink, that is fine.  If a browser want to read all the text, and yell when an bold tag is encountered, that is fine.  It is CSS that defines how and where a block is to be rendered, not HTML.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CSS defines how something is rendered .
HTML merely define tage to endow blocks of text with certain properties .
For instance , this block of text might be a caption .
This block of text might be a title .
This block of text might just be text that is free to flow as needed .
The rendering is 100 \ % up to the the browser .
If the browse want to render a title with zigbats in pink , that is fine .
If a browser want to read all the text , and yell when an bold tag is encountered , that is fine .
It is CSS that defines how and where a block is to be rendered , not HTML .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CSS defines how something is rendered.
HTML merely define tage to endow blocks of text with certain properties.
For instance, this block of text might be a caption.
This block of text might be a title.
This block of text might just be text that is free to flow as needed.
The rendering is 100\% up to the the browser.
If the browse want to render a title with zigbats in pink, that is fine.
If a browser want to read all the text, and yell when an bold tag is encountered, that is fine.
It is CSS that defines how and where a block is to be rendered, not HTML.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573089</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a few people are confused...</title>
	<author>SurenPala</author>
	<datestamp>1246644420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand why they don't just go ahead and drop the SGML parts of HTML 5, if they are going to break backwards compatibility why not move to a completely XML based syntax.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why they do n't just go ahead and drop the SGML parts of HTML 5 , if they are going to break backwards compatibility why not move to a completely XML based syntax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why they don't just go ahead and drop the SGML parts of HTML 5, if they are going to break backwards compatibility why not move to a completely XML based syntax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572593</id>
	<title>Smart decision</title>
	<author>Chris\_Mir</author>
	<datestamp>1246641600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes it is good to have various standards within the same area, because of conflicting interests, etc. But when new or modified standards resolve these conflicts, the best this would be to merge with or adapted the new standard. It would be nice if this could happen with more standards (and licences for that matter), just to keep things a bit clean.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes it is good to have various standards within the same area , because of conflicting interests , etc .
But when new or modified standards resolve these conflicts , the best this would be to merge with or adapted the new standard .
It would be nice if this could happen with more standards ( and licences for that matter ) , just to keep things a bit clean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes it is good to have various standards within the same area, because of conflicting interests, etc.
But when new or modified standards resolve these conflicts, the best this would be to merge with or adapted the new standard.
It would be nice if this could happen with more standards (and licences for that matter), just to keep things a bit clean.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572311</id>
	<title>Bullshit summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246639620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; According to the XHTML FAQ, however, the W3C does 'plan for the XML serialization of HTML to remain compatible with XML.' Looks like with HTML 5, we'll get the best of both worlds."</p><p>From the linked FAQ:</p><p>Does W3C plan for the XML serialization of HTML to remain compatible with XML?</p><p>Yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; According to the XHTML FAQ , however , the W3C does 'plan for the XML serialization of HTML to remain compatible with XML .
' Looks like with HTML 5 , we 'll get the best of both worlds .
" From the linked FAQ : Does W3C plan for the XML serialization of HTML to remain compatible with XML ? Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; According to the XHTML FAQ, however, the W3C does 'plan for the XML serialization of HTML to remain compatible with XML.
' Looks like with HTML 5, we'll get the best of both worlds.
"From the linked FAQ:Does W3C plan for the XML serialization of HTML to remain compatible with XML?Yes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573437</id>
	<title>Mime Type didn't matter</title>
	<author>coryking</author>
	<datestamp>1246646700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The MIME type sent in the headers never mattered.<br>If you fed IE7+ a XHTML doctype, it would pretty much render XHTML.  Ditto with every other browser.</p><p>As has been said, XHTML is basically well formed HTML (with "depreciated tags" that you'd use anyway).  When HTML5 rolls around, I expect many people including myself to just use the new tags and attributes and still produce well formed XML.  Same as we've done for XHTML--take HTML4 and make it valid. All the browsers will take it and I bet it won't even violate whatever DTD this new thing uses.</p><p>In otherwords, there never was a standard and there never will be.  The closest standard you can get is "is this valid XML"... if you can get valid XML, all the browsers will *parse* the thing in the same way.  Of course, how they render said parsing isn't quite standard.  The "rendering differences" is where the fun starts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The MIME type sent in the headers never mattered.If you fed IE7 + a XHTML doctype , it would pretty much render XHTML .
Ditto with every other browser.As has been said , XHTML is basically well formed HTML ( with " depreciated tags " that you 'd use anyway ) .
When HTML5 rolls around , I expect many people including myself to just use the new tags and attributes and still produce well formed XML .
Same as we 've done for XHTML--take HTML4 and make it valid .
All the browsers will take it and I bet it wo n't even violate whatever DTD this new thing uses.In otherwords , there never was a standard and there never will be .
The closest standard you can get is " is this valid XML " ... if you can get valid XML , all the browsers will * parse * the thing in the same way .
Of course , how they render said parsing is n't quite standard .
The " rendering differences " is where the fun starts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MIME type sent in the headers never mattered.If you fed IE7+ a XHTML doctype, it would pretty much render XHTML.
Ditto with every other browser.As has been said, XHTML is basically well formed HTML (with "depreciated tags" that you'd use anyway).
When HTML5 rolls around, I expect many people including myself to just use the new tags and attributes and still produce well formed XML.
Same as we've done for XHTML--take HTML4 and make it valid.
All the browsers will take it and I bet it won't even violate whatever DTD this new thing uses.In otherwords, there never was a standard and there never will be.
The closest standard you can get is "is this valid XML"... if you can get valid XML, all the browsers will *parse* the thing in the same way.
Of course, how they render said parsing isn't quite standard.
The "rendering differences" is where the fun starts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574273</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246652700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is horrible, and actively supports the dumbing down of people.</p></div><p>This is where I take issue with your argument. I completely agree that having the page break catastrophically when there was an error would be easier and better for people who design websites professionally (like me), especially in this day and age. <br> <br>

However, I don't believe that it supports the dumbing down of people, I believe it support less knowledgeable users. To use the compiler as an example, when my sister-in-law learned programming, she learned Java; to get to the point where she could do basic things like "hello world," she had to instantiate objects and call functions. My wife learned with php, and she had to type one line, a command and a string. The barrier for entry was much lower and she was rewarded much faster, thereby gaining a greater desire to learn more.<br>Br.

At the time, browsers taking incorrect HTML was the same philosophy: you lower the barrier of entry. When someone writes a lot of web pages, they tend to become more knowledgeable, not less. There are exceptions that make everyone serious about the craft cringe and want to beat their heads against a brick wall, but for the most part skills are progressing. I don't know whether the web landscape would be better or worse right now if they'd required strict HTML for every web site, but I can tell you that a lot of people who were enthusiastic supporters and creators of web pages in the early days wouldn't have gone down that route had the barrier for entry been higher.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is horrible , and actively supports the dumbing down of people.This is where I take issue with your argument .
I completely agree that having the page break catastrophically when there was an error would be easier and better for people who design websites professionally ( like me ) , especially in this day and age .
However , I do n't believe that it supports the dumbing down of people , I believe it support less knowledgeable users .
To use the compiler as an example , when my sister-in-law learned programming , she learned Java ; to get to the point where she could do basic things like " hello world , " she had to instantiate objects and call functions .
My wife learned with php , and she had to type one line , a command and a string .
The barrier for entry was much lower and she was rewarded much faster , thereby gaining a greater desire to learn more.Br .
At the time , browsers taking incorrect HTML was the same philosophy : you lower the barrier of entry .
When someone writes a lot of web pages , they tend to become more knowledgeable , not less .
There are exceptions that make everyone serious about the craft cringe and want to beat their heads against a brick wall , but for the most part skills are progressing .
I do n't know whether the web landscape would be better or worse right now if they 'd required strict HTML for every web site , but I can tell you that a lot of people who were enthusiastic supporters and creators of web pages in the early days would n't have gone down that route had the barrier for entry been higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is horrible, and actively supports the dumbing down of people.This is where I take issue with your argument.
I completely agree that having the page break catastrophically when there was an error would be easier and better for people who design websites professionally (like me), especially in this day and age.
However, I don't believe that it supports the dumbing down of people, I believe it support less knowledgeable users.
To use the compiler as an example, when my sister-in-law learned programming, she learned Java; to get to the point where she could do basic things like "hello world," she had to instantiate objects and call functions.
My wife learned with php, and she had to type one line, a command and a string.
The barrier for entry was much lower and she was rewarded much faster, thereby gaining a greater desire to learn more.Br.
At the time, browsers taking incorrect HTML was the same philosophy: you lower the barrier of entry.
When someone writes a lot of web pages, they tend to become more knowledgeable, not less.
There are exceptions that make everyone serious about the craft cringe and want to beat their heads against a brick wall, but for the most part skills are progressing.
I don't know whether the web landscape would be better or worse right now if they'd required strict HTML for every web site, but I can tell you that a lot of people who were enthusiastic supporters and creators of web pages in the early days wouldn't have gone down that route had the barrier for entry been higher.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575543</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>Stan Vassilev</author>
	<datestamp>1246618980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone too lazy to code nice neat xhtml shouldn't be allowed to create web pages.</p></div><p>

You know, I'm not a fan of bad-formed code, and I'm not religious. But when I read statements like yours, I make the sign of the cross and start praying we don't come to this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br> <br>

If you have any confusion about it at this point, the value of the web was never in the markup. It's in the content the markup describes. Strict in what you send, liberal in what you accept, I suppose you've heard that one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone too lazy to code nice neat xhtml should n't be allowed to create web pages .
You know , I 'm not a fan of bad-formed code , and I 'm not religious .
But when I read statements like yours , I make the sign of the cross and start praying we do n't come to this ; ) If you have any confusion about it at this point , the value of the web was never in the markup .
It 's in the content the markup describes .
Strict in what you send , liberal in what you accept , I suppose you 've heard that one : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone too lazy to code nice neat xhtml shouldn't be allowed to create web pages.
You know, I'm not a fan of bad-formed code, and I'm not religious.
But when I read statements like yours, I make the sign of the cross and start praying we don't come to this ;) 

If you have any confusion about it at this point, the value of the web was never in the markup.
It's in the content the markup describes.
Strict in what you send, liberal in what you accept, I suppose you've heard that one :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>orta</author>
	<datestamp>1246639020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know a lot of web developers who dont know the difference between XHTML and HTML, and I hear XHTML as a buzzword all the time. The less confusion the better in my opinion. The HMTL5 spec is quite readable,but if you've not taken a stab at working with HTML5 (it runs all browsers) yet this article should be pretty useful: <a href="http://www.phpguru.org/static/html5" title="phpguru.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.phpguru.org/static/html5</a> [phpguru.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a lot of web developers who dont know the difference between XHTML and HTML , and I hear XHTML as a buzzword all the time .
The less confusion the better in my opinion .
The HMTL5 spec is quite readable,but if you 've not taken a stab at working with HTML5 ( it runs all browsers ) yet this article should be pretty useful : http : //www.phpguru.org/static/html5 [ phpguru.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a lot of web developers who dont know the difference between XHTML and HTML, and I hear XHTML as a buzzword all the time.
The less confusion the better in my opinion.
The HMTL5 spec is quite readable,but if you've not taken a stab at working with HTML5 (it runs all browsers) yet this article should be pretty useful: http://www.phpguru.org/static/html5 [phpguru.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576501</id>
	<title>Re:I'm disappointed.</title>
	<author>tenco</author>
	<datestamp>1246627680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I don't quite understand if this is feature complete compared to XHTML (the missing metadata confuses me):
<a href="http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#mathml" title="w3.org">http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#mathml</a> [w3.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I do n't quite understand if this is feature complete compared to XHTML ( the missing metadata confuses me ) : http : //dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html # mathml [ w3.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I don't quite understand if this is feature complete compared to XHTML (the missing metadata confuses me):
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#mathml [w3.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576297</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1246625880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The main key is, that, while HTML5 is based on the superior SGML (because of more freedom), XHTML had started to enforce strictness and cleanness. This meant the browser did not have to support a ton of typos, just because the editor was a freakin' lazy ass. Imagine a compiler that would eat any typo. Missing brackets, braces, semicolons, object-function separators, completely meaningless semantic messes. HTML4 browsers eat it all.</i></p><p>Totally wrong. One of the most important rules in software is: "be liberal in what you accept, and strict in what you output." XHTML does that first part COMPLETELY WRONG.</p><p>Here's the thing: while you're going on about dumbing-down, you're completely ignoring the basic power of the web-- the fact that everybody can (and should) participate in it.</p><p>You long for a world where, if I put my STRONG tag and my EM tag in the wrong order, a completely trivial error, the browser should show absolutely nothing. Even though it's obvious to everybody what I *meant*, since a computer thinks like a computer and rejects it like a retard.</p><p>You know what? I already have enough computer programs that act like retards. I want my software to be smart, so that humans don't have to worry about that trivial shit you seem to relish so much. In the ideal world, software would *do what I mean*, not *do what I say*. Your world sucks.</p><p>It doesn't help, BTW, that "dumbing down" is always one of those grouchy "get off my lawn" arguments people make when they don't really have any actual arguments.</p><p>And how do we move into your world? Well, first of all we completely and utterly delude ourselves into thinking that HTML4 will disappear overnights and XHTML can make browser simpler to implement. Thus deluded, we then create a new standard which offers absolutely *nothing* new over the old standard, then tell all the browser makers to add that into the already-too-long list of standards they need to support. Oh, and just to cement W3C's isolation from the *actual* work of creating and maintaining webpages, let's make this new standard incompatible with some of the most popular web analytics tags out there.</p><p>XHTML was retardation from day 1.</p><p>Now the flamebait part: of course what you're probably really after is some kind of elitist high-priesthood-of-technology bullshit for your own selfish reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main key is , that , while HTML5 is based on the superior SGML ( because of more freedom ) , XHTML had started to enforce strictness and cleanness .
This meant the browser did not have to support a ton of typos , just because the editor was a freakin ' lazy ass .
Imagine a compiler that would eat any typo .
Missing brackets , braces , semicolons , object-function separators , completely meaningless semantic messes .
HTML4 browsers eat it all.Totally wrong .
One of the most important rules in software is : " be liberal in what you accept , and strict in what you output .
" XHTML does that first part COMPLETELY WRONG.Here 's the thing : while you 're going on about dumbing-down , you 're completely ignoring the basic power of the web-- the fact that everybody can ( and should ) participate in it.You long for a world where , if I put my STRONG tag and my EM tag in the wrong order , a completely trivial error , the browser should show absolutely nothing .
Even though it 's obvious to everybody what I * meant * , since a computer thinks like a computer and rejects it like a retard.You know what ?
I already have enough computer programs that act like retards .
I want my software to be smart , so that humans do n't have to worry about that trivial shit you seem to relish so much .
In the ideal world , software would * do what I mean * , not * do what I say * .
Your world sucks.It does n't help , BTW , that " dumbing down " is always one of those grouchy " get off my lawn " arguments people make when they do n't really have any actual arguments.And how do we move into your world ?
Well , first of all we completely and utterly delude ourselves into thinking that HTML4 will disappear overnights and XHTML can make browser simpler to implement .
Thus deluded , we then create a new standard which offers absolutely * nothing * new over the old standard , then tell all the browser makers to add that into the already-too-long list of standards they need to support .
Oh , and just to cement W3C 's isolation from the * actual * work of creating and maintaining webpages , let 's make this new standard incompatible with some of the most popular web analytics tags out there.XHTML was retardation from day 1.Now the flamebait part : of course what you 're probably really after is some kind of elitist high-priesthood-of-technology bullshit for your own selfish reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main key is, that, while HTML5 is based on the superior SGML (because of more freedom), XHTML had started to enforce strictness and cleanness.
This meant the browser did not have to support a ton of typos, just because the editor was a freakin' lazy ass.
Imagine a compiler that would eat any typo.
Missing brackets, braces, semicolons, object-function separators, completely meaningless semantic messes.
HTML4 browsers eat it all.Totally wrong.
One of the most important rules in software is: "be liberal in what you accept, and strict in what you output.
" XHTML does that first part COMPLETELY WRONG.Here's the thing: while you're going on about dumbing-down, you're completely ignoring the basic power of the web-- the fact that everybody can (and should) participate in it.You long for a world where, if I put my STRONG tag and my EM tag in the wrong order, a completely trivial error, the browser should show absolutely nothing.
Even though it's obvious to everybody what I *meant*, since a computer thinks like a computer and rejects it like a retard.You know what?
I already have enough computer programs that act like retards.
I want my software to be smart, so that humans don't have to worry about that trivial shit you seem to relish so much.
In the ideal world, software would *do what I mean*, not *do what I say*.
Your world sucks.It doesn't help, BTW, that "dumbing down" is always one of those grouchy "get off my lawn" arguments people make when they don't really have any actual arguments.And how do we move into your world?
Well, first of all we completely and utterly delude ourselves into thinking that HTML4 will disappear overnights and XHTML can make browser simpler to implement.
Thus deluded, we then create a new standard which offers absolutely *nothing* new over the old standard, then tell all the browser makers to add that into the already-too-long list of standards they need to support.
Oh, and just to cement W3C's isolation from the *actual* work of creating and maintaining webpages, let's make this new standard incompatible with some of the most popular web analytics tags out there.XHTML was retardation from day 1.Now the flamebait part: of course what you're probably really after is some kind of elitist high-priesthood-of-technology bullshit for your own selfish reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575615</id>
	<title>Re:Mime Type didn't matter</title>
	<author>Haeleth</author>
	<datestamp>1246619520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The MIME type sent in the headers never mattered.<br>If you fed IE7+ a XHTML doctype, it would pretty much render XHTML. Ditto with every other browser.</p></div></blockquote><p>Simply not true.  For example, Firefox only renders the XHTML &lt;ruby&gt; tag if you use the XHTML MIME type that messes up IE.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MIME type sent in the headers never mattered.If you fed IE7 + a XHTML doctype , it would pretty much render XHTML .
Ditto with every other browser.Simply not true .
For example , Firefox only renders the XHTML tag if you use the XHTML MIME type that messes up IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MIME type sent in the headers never mattered.If you fed IE7+ a XHTML doctype, it would pretty much render XHTML.
Ditto with every other browser.Simply not true.
For example, Firefox only renders the XHTML  tag if you use the XHTML MIME type that messes up IE.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578881</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>tchernobog</author>
	<datestamp>1246703700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, c'mon! XHTML main rule: you opened a tag, you close that tag. It can be so "elitist"!</p><p>I remember back in 1997 wondering why not all tags were being closed.<br>
I started leaving them open just for sloppiness, or because others did that too.</p><p>It'd probably be more easier for people to understand in a well-structured way like HTML than leaving them looking why that freakin' div doesn't display correctly and then realising they have closed a "li" element outside a "div" element or other crap like that.</p><p>PS. given that, I totally agree with you that people should be encouraged to create web pages, and all that "only people who have a master degree in CS should touch the web" nonsense should go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , c'mon !
XHTML main rule : you opened a tag , you close that tag .
It can be so " elitist " ! I remember back in 1997 wondering why not all tags were being closed .
I started leaving them open just for sloppiness , or because others did that too.It 'd probably be more easier for people to understand in a well-structured way like HTML than leaving them looking why that freakin ' div does n't display correctly and then realising they have closed a " li " element outside a " div " element or other crap like that.PS .
given that , I totally agree with you that people should be encouraged to create web pages , and all that " only people who have a master degree in CS should touch the web " nonsense should go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, c'mon!
XHTML main rule: you opened a tag, you close that tag.
It can be so "elitist"!I remember back in 1997 wondering why not all tags were being closed.
I started leaving them open just for sloppiness, or because others did that too.It'd probably be more easier for people to understand in a well-structured way like HTML than leaving them looking why that freakin' div doesn't display correctly and then realising they have closed a "li" element outside a "div" element or other crap like that.PS.
given that, I totally agree with you that people should be encouraged to create web pages, and all that "only people who have a master degree in CS should touch the web" nonsense should go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572371</id>
	<title>Yawn</title>
	<author>bwintx</author>
	<datestamp>1246639980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Combined with this information and the <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/02/184251/Browser-Vendors-Force-W3C-To-Scrap-HTML-5-Codecs" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">browser manufacturers having whupped the W3C over the codecs stuff</a> [slashdot.org], not to mention my continuing requirement to support a large number of slackjawed technophobes who don't know there's something better than IE 6, I can't help but feel I'm gonna be stuck coding "HTML 4.01 strict" for a long, long time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Combined with this information and the browser manufacturers having whupped the W3C over the codecs stuff [ slashdot.org ] , not to mention my continuing requirement to support a large number of slackjawed technophobes who do n't know there 's something better than IE 6 , I ca n't help but feel I 'm gon na be stuck coding " HTML 4.01 strict " for a long , long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Combined with this information and the browser manufacturers having whupped the W3C over the codecs stuff [slashdot.org], not to mention my continuing requirement to support a large number of slackjawed technophobes who don't know there's something better than IE 6, I can't help but feel I'm gonna be stuck coding "HTML 4.01 strict" for a long, long time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28577135</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246635360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Totally wrong. One of the most important rules in software is: "be liberal in what you accept, and strict in what you output." XHTML does that first part COMPLETELY WRONG.</p></div><p>Far from being "one of the most important rules in software", Postel's law has been all but <a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/03/17.html" title="joelonsoftware.com" rel="nofollow">debunked</a> [joelonsoftware.com], at least in this context.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>the basic power of the web-- the fact that everybody can (and should) participate in it. You long for a world where, if I put my STRONG tag and my EM tag in the wrong order, a completely trivial error, the browser should show absolutely nothing. Even though it's obvious to everybody what I *meant*, since a computer thinks like a computer and rejects it like a retard.</p></div><p>Maybe *he* does, but many of us don't, and that's not the only reason to advocate XHTML.</p><p>As long as HTML is liberal, and we expect people to write it, then browsers all have to have their own intuition at this level.  That means anybody writing something that will end up on the web has to know about the whole stack down to the level of the HTML rendering.  That seems horribly low-level.</p><p>I want XHTML to be rock-solid, with no room for question or interpretation.  If it's too hard to write, we can build useful abstractions on it -- like everybody does (Markdown, Wikimedia, etc.) anyway.</p><p>I want it to be like those other low-level standards that leave no room for interpretation, like UTF-8.  UTF-8 has been a phenomenal success, in part (I believe) because UTF-8 parsers don't have to deal with guessing.  Nobody's asking for "well, what if I find four consecutive bytes that start with 10..." in the spec, or in a decoder.  If it doesn't look right, the decoder just aborts.  (It's largely backwards-compatible with ASCII, so you can sometimes read part of the page if it's wrong, but it's obvious that it's really broken, and you need to fix it.)</p><p>HTML should be the same way, and XHTML showed a way to do that.  If it's too low-level, you have your tools convert to it.  You could even write an HTML4-to-XHTML converter.  But the "guess what the user meant" intuition belongs in tools, not in the core specs.</p><p>Another big problem is that with all the intuition required in a browser, it makes it virtually impossible for new rendering engines to appear.  The web would never get off the ground with the crap we've got out there today.  I there to be more than 3 rendering engines in the world, and I want the specs to be simple enough that that's possible to achieve.  If you want to talk about "important rules in software" and "the basic power of the web", then we should make implementing a rendering engine that meets the specs *possible*.  Right now, no browser will ever come close, and the specs are already 10x more complex than will ever get implemented, but adding "guess what the user meant!" crap just sucks the life out of any progress that these rendering engines have to do.  IE8 punted and included IE7-mode -- that's how bad it's getting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally wrong .
One of the most important rules in software is : " be liberal in what you accept , and strict in what you output .
" XHTML does that first part COMPLETELY WRONG.Far from being " one of the most important rules in software " , Postel 's law has been all but debunked [ joelonsoftware.com ] , at least in this context.the basic power of the web-- the fact that everybody can ( and should ) participate in it .
You long for a world where , if I put my STRONG tag and my EM tag in the wrong order , a completely trivial error , the browser should show absolutely nothing .
Even though it 's obvious to everybody what I * meant * , since a computer thinks like a computer and rejects it like a retard.Maybe * he * does , but many of us do n't , and that 's not the only reason to advocate XHTML.As long as HTML is liberal , and we expect people to write it , then browsers all have to have their own intuition at this level .
That means anybody writing something that will end up on the web has to know about the whole stack down to the level of the HTML rendering .
That seems horribly low-level.I want XHTML to be rock-solid , with no room for question or interpretation .
If it 's too hard to write , we can build useful abstractions on it -- like everybody does ( Markdown , Wikimedia , etc .
) anyway.I want it to be like those other low-level standards that leave no room for interpretation , like UTF-8 .
UTF-8 has been a phenomenal success , in part ( I believe ) because UTF-8 parsers do n't have to deal with guessing .
Nobody 's asking for " well , what if I find four consecutive bytes that start with 10... " in the spec , or in a decoder .
If it does n't look right , the decoder just aborts .
( It 's largely backwards-compatible with ASCII , so you can sometimes read part of the page if it 's wrong , but it 's obvious that it 's really broken , and you need to fix it .
) HTML should be the same way , and XHTML showed a way to do that .
If it 's too low-level , you have your tools convert to it .
You could even write an HTML4-to-XHTML converter .
But the " guess what the user meant " intuition belongs in tools , not in the core specs.Another big problem is that with all the intuition required in a browser , it makes it virtually impossible for new rendering engines to appear .
The web would never get off the ground with the crap we 've got out there today .
I there to be more than 3 rendering engines in the world , and I want the specs to be simple enough that that 's possible to achieve .
If you want to talk about " important rules in software " and " the basic power of the web " , then we should make implementing a rendering engine that meets the specs * possible * .
Right now , no browser will ever come close , and the specs are already 10x more complex than will ever get implemented , but adding " guess what the user meant !
" crap just sucks the life out of any progress that these rendering engines have to do .
IE8 punted and included IE7-mode -- that 's how bad it 's getting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally wrong.
One of the most important rules in software is: "be liberal in what you accept, and strict in what you output.
" XHTML does that first part COMPLETELY WRONG.Far from being "one of the most important rules in software", Postel's law has been all but debunked [joelonsoftware.com], at least in this context.the basic power of the web-- the fact that everybody can (and should) participate in it.
You long for a world where, if I put my STRONG tag and my EM tag in the wrong order, a completely trivial error, the browser should show absolutely nothing.
Even though it's obvious to everybody what I *meant*, since a computer thinks like a computer and rejects it like a retard.Maybe *he* does, but many of us don't, and that's not the only reason to advocate XHTML.As long as HTML is liberal, and we expect people to write it, then browsers all have to have their own intuition at this level.
That means anybody writing something that will end up on the web has to know about the whole stack down to the level of the HTML rendering.
That seems horribly low-level.I want XHTML to be rock-solid, with no room for question or interpretation.
If it's too hard to write, we can build useful abstractions on it -- like everybody does (Markdown, Wikimedia, etc.
) anyway.I want it to be like those other low-level standards that leave no room for interpretation, like UTF-8.
UTF-8 has been a phenomenal success, in part (I believe) because UTF-8 parsers don't have to deal with guessing.
Nobody's asking for "well, what if I find four consecutive bytes that start with 10..." in the spec, or in a decoder.
If it doesn't look right, the decoder just aborts.
(It's largely backwards-compatible with ASCII, so you can sometimes read part of the page if it's wrong, but it's obvious that it's really broken, and you need to fix it.
)HTML should be the same way, and XHTML showed a way to do that.
If it's too low-level, you have your tools convert to it.
You could even write an HTML4-to-XHTML converter.
But the "guess what the user meant" intuition belongs in tools, not in the core specs.Another big problem is that with all the intuition required in a browser, it makes it virtually impossible for new rendering engines to appear.
The web would never get off the ground with the crap we've got out there today.
I there to be more than 3 rendering engines in the world, and I want the specs to be simple enough that that's possible to achieve.
If you want to talk about "important rules in software" and "the basic power of the web", then we should make implementing a rendering engine that meets the specs *possible*.
Right now, no browser will ever come close, and the specs are already 10x more complex than will ever get implemented, but adding "guess what the user meant!
" crap just sucks the life out of any progress that these rendering engines have to do.
IE8 punted and included IE7-mode -- that's how bad it's getting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578171</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1246648320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the ideal world, software would *do what I mean*, not *do what I say*.</p></div><p>No it shouldn't, and the reason is quite simple. And no, it's not 'elitism' or any of those red herrings you're throwing.</p><p>Lack of formalized languages has done enough harm elsewhere, you can take a relatively complex phrase in English and two people will come up with two different meanings for it. Perhaps they'll only differ sightly, perhaps not, but chances are they won't be perfectly interchangeable. Extrapolate that to software, and you have pretty much the same situation as today only worse: IE interprets your mistakes one way, Firefox another, Opera yet another one and suddenly the stuff that was supposed to be "standardized", ain't.</p><p>Take your example of the strong and em tags, but lets extend it a bit further and say you've defined (for some unknown reason) to define in CSS that 'strong' displays in Arial and 'em' in Times. You write &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;hi&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, simple enough right? yeah, except that which font should it use? assume the standard specifies that inner tags overwrite the style of outer ones. IE decides that, since you wrote &lt;strong&gt; first, thats the outer one and so uses Times. But Firefox sees that &lt;strong&gt; was *closed* first and so is the inner one, therefore it should go with Arial.</p><p>Both are valid interpretations for such a simple mistake, yet both produce drastically different results. Make a not-so-trivial example, and the number of possible interpretations increases exponentially.</p><p>Computers are designed to be deterministic and therefore so must be the languages that it must speak. And having "intelligent" computers that "guess" what you meant instead of following a predetermined, standardized pattern and complaining loudly if they can't (another very important rule of programming, btw) is not only incredibly more difficult to write, but also to *use*. HTML5 is a step in the right direction since it tries to standardize the ways browsers must deal with faulty input, but had the web be stricter from day one this problem wouldn't have arisen in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the ideal world , software would * do what I mean * , not * do what I say * .No it should n't , and the reason is quite simple .
And no , it 's not 'elitism ' or any of those red herrings you 're throwing.Lack of formalized languages has done enough harm elsewhere , you can take a relatively complex phrase in English and two people will come up with two different meanings for it .
Perhaps they 'll only differ sightly , perhaps not , but chances are they wo n't be perfectly interchangeable .
Extrapolate that to software , and you have pretty much the same situation as today only worse : IE interprets your mistakes one way , Firefox another , Opera yet another one and suddenly the stuff that was supposed to be " standardized " , ai n't.Take your example of the strong and em tags , but lets extend it a bit further and say you 've defined ( for some unknown reason ) to define in CSS that 'strong ' displays in Arial and 'em ' in Times .
You write hi , simple enough right ?
yeah , except that which font should it use ?
assume the standard specifies that inner tags overwrite the style of outer ones .
IE decides that , since you wrote first , thats the outer one and so uses Times .
But Firefox sees that was * closed * first and so is the inner one , therefore it should go with Arial.Both are valid interpretations for such a simple mistake , yet both produce drastically different results .
Make a not-so-trivial example , and the number of possible interpretations increases exponentially.Computers are designed to be deterministic and therefore so must be the languages that it must speak .
And having " intelligent " computers that " guess " what you meant instead of following a predetermined , standardized pattern and complaining loudly if they ca n't ( another very important rule of programming , btw ) is not only incredibly more difficult to write , but also to * use * .
HTML5 is a step in the right direction since it tries to standardize the ways browsers must deal with faulty input , but had the web be stricter from day one this problem would n't have arisen in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the ideal world, software would *do what I mean*, not *do what I say*.No it shouldn't, and the reason is quite simple.
And no, it's not 'elitism' or any of those red herrings you're throwing.Lack of formalized languages has done enough harm elsewhere, you can take a relatively complex phrase in English and two people will come up with two different meanings for it.
Perhaps they'll only differ sightly, perhaps not, but chances are they won't be perfectly interchangeable.
Extrapolate that to software, and you have pretty much the same situation as today only worse: IE interprets your mistakes one way, Firefox another, Opera yet another one and suddenly the stuff that was supposed to be "standardized", ain't.Take your example of the strong and em tags, but lets extend it a bit further and say you've defined (for some unknown reason) to define in CSS that 'strong' displays in Arial and 'em' in Times.
You write hi, simple enough right?
yeah, except that which font should it use?
assume the standard specifies that inner tags overwrite the style of outer ones.
IE decides that, since you wrote  first, thats the outer one and so uses Times.
But Firefox sees that  was *closed* first and so is the inner one, therefore it should go with Arial.Both are valid interpretations for such a simple mistake, yet both produce drastically different results.
Make a not-so-trivial example, and the number of possible interpretations increases exponentially.Computers are designed to be deterministic and therefore so must be the languages that it must speak.
And having "intelligent" computers that "guess" what you meant instead of following a predetermined, standardized pattern and complaining loudly if they can't (another very important rule of programming, btw) is not only incredibly more difficult to write, but also to *use*.
HTML5 is a step in the right direction since it tries to standardize the ways browsers must deal with faulty input, but had the web be stricter from day one this problem wouldn't have arisen in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28592179</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246874040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people here would completely disagree with you.<br>If it supports the typos then it is a complete dumbing down and that is bad, worse than bad, it encourages poor code.<br>In your Java example, the compiler won't compile unless it is valid syntactically correct code. Should javac accept all kinds of dumb typos ? No way, that would be plain awful.<br>Correctness is a virtue that the HTML system should embrace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people here would completely disagree with you.If it supports the typos then it is a complete dumbing down and that is bad , worse than bad , it encourages poor code.In your Java example , the compiler wo n't compile unless it is valid syntactically correct code .
Should javac accept all kinds of dumb typos ?
No way , that would be plain awful.Correctness is a virtue that the HTML system should embrace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people here would completely disagree with you.If it supports the typos then it is a complete dumbing down and that is bad, worse than bad, it encourages poor code.In your Java example, the compiler won't compile unless it is valid syntactically correct code.
Should javac accept all kinds of dumb typos ?
No way, that would be plain awful.Correctness is a virtue that the HTML system should embrace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578123</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>kelnos</author>
	<datestamp>1246647600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the most important rules in software is: "be liberal in what you accept, and strict in what you output."</p></div><p>This "rule" is what has gotten us into the browser incompatibility mess in the first place.<br>
<br>
There's certainly some value in an interpreter fixing up minor errors, but the problem is when those fixups make it such that *correct* code can't always be interpreted as it was meant to, or can be interpreted in different, incompatible, non-conforming ways.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You long for a world where, if I put my STRONG tag and my EM tag in the wrong order, a completely trivial error, the browser should show absolutely nothing. Even though it's obvious to everybody what I *meant*, since a computer thinks like a computer and rejects it like a retard.</p></div><p>You've picked a ridiculously simple example that fails to prove your point.  The problem is: where do you draw the line?  I'm sure many experienced web developers here could come up with some great examples of HTML out in the wild that's incorrect, but the browsers accept it, all in slightly different ways that make the rendered page look different.<br>
<br>
This "be liberal in what you receive" tenet is also why we have things like special cases for certain IMAP servers in client code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the most important rules in software is : " be liberal in what you accept , and strict in what you output .
" This " rule " is what has gotten us into the browser incompatibility mess in the first place .
There 's certainly some value in an interpreter fixing up minor errors , but the problem is when those fixups make it such that * correct * code ca n't always be interpreted as it was meant to , or can be interpreted in different , incompatible , non-conforming ways.You long for a world where , if I put my STRONG tag and my EM tag in the wrong order , a completely trivial error , the browser should show absolutely nothing .
Even though it 's obvious to everybody what I * meant * , since a computer thinks like a computer and rejects it like a retard.You 've picked a ridiculously simple example that fails to prove your point .
The problem is : where do you draw the line ?
I 'm sure many experienced web developers here could come up with some great examples of HTML out in the wild that 's incorrect , but the browsers accept it , all in slightly different ways that make the rendered page look different .
This " be liberal in what you receive " tenet is also why we have things like special cases for certain IMAP servers in client code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the most important rules in software is: "be liberal in what you accept, and strict in what you output.
"This "rule" is what has gotten us into the browser incompatibility mess in the first place.
There's certainly some value in an interpreter fixing up minor errors, but the problem is when those fixups make it such that *correct* code can't always be interpreted as it was meant to, or can be interpreted in different, incompatible, non-conforming ways.You long for a world where, if I put my STRONG tag and my EM tag in the wrong order, a completely trivial error, the browser should show absolutely nothing.
Even though it's obvious to everybody what I *meant*, since a computer thinks like a computer and rejects it like a retard.You've picked a ridiculously simple example that fails to prove your point.
The problem is: where do you draw the line?
I'm sure many experienced web developers here could come up with some great examples of HTML out in the wild that's incorrect, but the browsers accept it, all in slightly different ways that make the rendered page look different.
This "be liberal in what you receive" tenet is also why we have things like special cases for certain IMAP servers in client code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28577377</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246638180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I take it you never heard of the acronym, PEBKAC. I agree that anyone should be able to create web pages, but you shouldn't actually code anything yourself if you don't know what the hell you're doing. You should use a web page creator  ( that hopefully produces nice code) or you should learn a language before using it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I take it you never heard of the acronym , PEBKAC .
I agree that anyone should be able to create web pages , but you should n't actually code anything yourself if you do n't know what the hell you 're doing .
You should use a web page creator ( that hopefully produces nice code ) or you should learn a language before using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take it you never heard of the acronym, PEBKAC.
I agree that anyone should be able to create web pages, but you shouldn't actually code anything yourself if you don't know what the hell you're doing.
You should use a web page creator  ( that hopefully produces nice code) or you should learn a language before using it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572513</id>
	<title>I'm disappointed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246641060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XHTML has some great features, notably the ability to embed MathML and SVG in it (great for academic sites) and strict error handling. Unfortunately these features never caught on because Internet Explorer doesn't understand the XHTML MIME type at all. What a shame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XHTML has some great features , notably the ability to embed MathML and SVG in it ( great for academic sites ) and strict error handling .
Unfortunately these features never caught on because Internet Explorer does n't understand the XHTML MIME type at all .
What a shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XHTML has some great features, notably the ability to embed MathML and SVG in it (great for academic sites) and strict error handling.
Unfortunately these features never caught on because Internet Explorer doesn't understand the XHTML MIME type at all.
What a shame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573861</id>
	<title>HTML 5 parsing is just awful.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1246649400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
At least with XML you have a simple, well-defined way to convert the XML text to a tree. With HTML 5, there's only "well-defined error handling".  Read the
<a href="http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/syntax.html" title="whatwg.org">sort-of specification</a> [whatwg.org] for this.
</p><p>
Here's what's supposed to happen for just one of the hard cases. (There are dozens of other cases, some at least as ugly.) Parsing is in "body" mode (normal content) and an end tag whose tag name is one of: "a", "b", "big", "code", "em", "font", "i", "nobr", "s", "small", "strike", "strong", "tt", "u" has been encountered.
</p><p>
<i>
Follow these steps:</i>
</p><ol>
<li>
Let the formatting element be the last element in the list of active formatting elements that:
<ul> <li>is between the end of the list and the last scope marker in the list, if any, or the start of the list otherwise, and</li><li>has the same tag name as the token.</li></ul><p>
          If there is no such node, or, if that node is also in the stack of open elements but the element is not in scope, then this is a parse error; ignore the token, and abort these steps.
<br>
          Otherwise, if there is such a node, but that node is not in the stack of open elements, then this is a parse error; remove the element from the list, and abort these steps.
<br>
          Otherwise, there is a formatting element and that element is in the stack and is in scope. If the element is not the current node, this is a parse error. In any case, proceed with the algorithm as written in the following steps.</p></li><li>
Let the furthest block be the topmost node in the stack of open elements that is lower in the stack than the formatting element, and is not an element in the phrasing or formatting categories. There might not be one.</li><li>
If there is no furthest block, then the UA must skip the subsequent steps and instead just pop all the nodes from the bottom of the stack of open elements, from the current node up to and including the formatting element, and remove the formatting element from the list of active formatting elements.</li><li>
Let the common ancestor be the element immediately above the formatting element in the stack of open elements.</li><li>
Let a bookmark note the position of the formatting element in the list of active formatting elements relative to the elements on either side of it in the list.</li><li>
Let node and last node be the furthest block. Follow these steps:
<ol>
<li>Let node be the element immediately above node in the stack of open elements.</li><li>If node is not in the list of active formatting elements, then remove node from the stack of open elements and then go back to step 1.</li><li>Otherwise, if node is the formatting element, then go to the next step in the overall algorithm.</li><li>Otherwise, if last node is the furthest block, then move the aforementioned bookmark to be immediately after the node in the list of active formatting elements.</li><li>Create an element for the token for which the element node was created, replace the entry for node in the list of active formatting elements with an entry for the new element, replace the entry for node in the stack of open elements with an entry for the new element, and let node be the new element.</li><li>Insert last node into node, first removing it from its previous parent node if any.</li><li>Let last node be node.</li><li>Return to step 1 of this inner set of steps.</li></ol></li><li>

          If the common ancestor node is a table, tbody, tfoot, thead, or tr element, then, foster parent whatever last node ended up being in the previous step, first removing it from its previous parent node if any.
<br>
          Otherwise, append whatever last node ended up being in the previous step to the common ancestor node, first removing it from its previous parent node if any.</li><li>

          Create an element for the token for which the formatting element was created.</li><li>Take all of the child nodes of the furthest block and append them to the element created in the last st</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least with XML you have a simple , well-defined way to convert the XML text to a tree .
With HTML 5 , there 's only " well-defined error handling " .
Read the sort-of specification [ whatwg.org ] for this .
Here 's what 's supposed to happen for just one of the hard cases .
( There are dozens of other cases , some at least as ugly .
) Parsing is in " body " mode ( normal content ) and an end tag whose tag name is one of : " a " , " b " , " big " , " code " , " em " , " font " , " i " , " nobr " , " s " , " small " , " strike " , " strong " , " tt " , " u " has been encountered .
Follow these steps : Let the formatting element be the last element in the list of active formatting elements that : is between the end of the list and the last scope marker in the list , if any , or the start of the list otherwise , andhas the same tag name as the token .
If there is no such node , or , if that node is also in the stack of open elements but the element is not in scope , then this is a parse error ; ignore the token , and abort these steps .
Otherwise , if there is such a node , but that node is not in the stack of open elements , then this is a parse error ; remove the element from the list , and abort these steps .
Otherwise , there is a formatting element and that element is in the stack and is in scope .
If the element is not the current node , this is a parse error .
In any case , proceed with the algorithm as written in the following steps .
Let the furthest block be the topmost node in the stack of open elements that is lower in the stack than the formatting element , and is not an element in the phrasing or formatting categories .
There might not be one .
If there is no furthest block , then the UA must skip the subsequent steps and instead just pop all the nodes from the bottom of the stack of open elements , from the current node up to and including the formatting element , and remove the formatting element from the list of active formatting elements .
Let the common ancestor be the element immediately above the formatting element in the stack of open elements .
Let a bookmark note the position of the formatting element in the list of active formatting elements relative to the elements on either side of it in the list .
Let node and last node be the furthest block .
Follow these steps : Let node be the element immediately above node in the stack of open elements.If node is not in the list of active formatting elements , then remove node from the stack of open elements and then go back to step 1.Otherwise , if node is the formatting element , then go to the next step in the overall algorithm.Otherwise , if last node is the furthest block , then move the aforementioned bookmark to be immediately after the node in the list of active formatting elements.Create an element for the token for which the element node was created , replace the entry for node in the list of active formatting elements with an entry for the new element , replace the entry for node in the stack of open elements with an entry for the new element , and let node be the new element.Insert last node into node , first removing it from its previous parent node if any.Let last node be node.Return to step 1 of this inner set of steps .
If the common ancestor node is a table , tbody , tfoot , thead , or tr element , then , foster parent whatever last node ended up being in the previous step , first removing it from its previous parent node if any .
Otherwise , append whatever last node ended up being in the previous step to the common ancestor node , first removing it from its previous parent node if any .
Create an element for the token for which the formatting element was created.Take all of the child nodes of the furthest block and append them to the element created in the last st</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
At least with XML you have a simple, well-defined way to convert the XML text to a tree.
With HTML 5, there's only "well-defined error handling".
Read the
sort-of specification [whatwg.org] for this.
Here's what's supposed to happen for just one of the hard cases.
(There are dozens of other cases, some at least as ugly.
) Parsing is in "body" mode (normal content) and an end tag whose tag name is one of: "a", "b", "big", "code", "em", "font", "i", "nobr", "s", "small", "strike", "strong", "tt", "u" has been encountered.
Follow these steps:


Let the formatting element be the last element in the list of active formatting elements that:
 is between the end of the list and the last scope marker in the list, if any, or the start of the list otherwise, andhas the same tag name as the token.
If there is no such node, or, if that node is also in the stack of open elements but the element is not in scope, then this is a parse error; ignore the token, and abort these steps.
Otherwise, if there is such a node, but that node is not in the stack of open elements, then this is a parse error; remove the element from the list, and abort these steps.
Otherwise, there is a formatting element and that element is in the stack and is in scope.
If the element is not the current node, this is a parse error.
In any case, proceed with the algorithm as written in the following steps.
Let the furthest block be the topmost node in the stack of open elements that is lower in the stack than the formatting element, and is not an element in the phrasing or formatting categories.
There might not be one.
If there is no furthest block, then the UA must skip the subsequent steps and instead just pop all the nodes from the bottom of the stack of open elements, from the current node up to and including the formatting element, and remove the formatting element from the list of active formatting elements.
Let the common ancestor be the element immediately above the formatting element in the stack of open elements.
Let a bookmark note the position of the formatting element in the list of active formatting elements relative to the elements on either side of it in the list.
Let node and last node be the furthest block.
Follow these steps:

Let node be the element immediately above node in the stack of open elements.If node is not in the list of active formatting elements, then remove node from the stack of open elements and then go back to step 1.Otherwise, if node is the formatting element, then go to the next step in the overall algorithm.Otherwise, if last node is the furthest block, then move the aforementioned bookmark to be immediately after the node in the list of active formatting elements.Create an element for the token for which the element node was created, replace the entry for node in the list of active formatting elements with an entry for the new element, replace the entry for node in the stack of open elements with an entry for the new element, and let node be the new element.Insert last node into node, first removing it from its previous parent node if any.Let last node be node.Return to step 1 of this inner set of steps.
If the common ancestor node is a table, tbody, tfoot, thead, or tr element, then, foster parent whatever last node ended up being in the previous step, first removing it from its previous parent node if any.
Otherwise, append whatever last node ended up being in the previous step to the common ancestor node, first removing it from its previous parent node if any.
Create an element for the token for which the formatting element was created.Take all of the child nodes of the furthest block and append them to the element created in the last st</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578921</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>RaymondKurzweil</author>
	<datestamp>1246704780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could you list here the URLs of some the websites you operate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you list here the URLs of some the websites you operate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you list here the URLs of some the websites you operate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257</id>
	<title>XHTML merged</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246639260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>They should have never created XHTML. They should have XMLized HTML in the first place. But, XHTML has corrected many wrong thing that HTML developpers used to do. Now, HTML5 should simply pick up the best of both world while still being XML compliant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should have never created XHTML .
They should have XMLized HTML in the first place .
But , XHTML has corrected many wrong thing that HTML developpers used to do .
Now , HTML5 should simply pick up the best of both world while still being XML compliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should have never created XHTML.
They should have XMLized HTML in the first place.
But, XHTML has corrected many wrong thing that HTML developpers used to do.
Now, HTML5 should simply pick up the best of both world while still being XML compliant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572425</id>
	<title>"...we'll get the best of both worlds."</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1246640400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Best or worst?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Best or worst ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best or worst?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575613</id>
	<title>XML mode and separating author/browser concerns</title>
	<author>spage</author>
	<datestamp>1246619520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now if they implement HTML5 right, and we get the same cleanness that XHTML 1.1 had (Strict only. No transitional shit.), and they add cross-language abilities too (trough SGML), then I'm all for it!</p></div><ol><li>There is an XML mode for HTML5, see <a href="http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/HTML\_vs.\_XHTML" title="whatwg.org">HTML vs. XHTML</a> [whatwg.org].  HTML5 even uses the same xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/&quot; namespace.</li><li>HTML5 tries to defines exactly how a browser should handle the billions of unclean documents out there.  This will help browser interoperability in the real worldwide web of garbled HTML, and has huge benefits for script parsing HTML because the DOM contents after reading in HTML should be somewhat similar in different browsers.</li><li>Despite this, HTML5 specifies very clearly how authors should write HTML.  It separates conformance for authors (write stuff correctly!!) from conformance for browsers (there are billions of crappy HTML documents out there, deal with it).  Read <a href="http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Why\_does\_HTML5\_legitimise\_tag\_soup.3F" title="whatwg.org">Why does HTML5 legitimise tag soup?</a> [whatwg.org]: &quot;Just because browsers are required to handle erroneous content, it does not make such markup conforming. &quot;</li></ol><p>Have some faith, the HTML5 spec and its writers are wayyyyy smarter than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. commenters!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if they implement HTML5 right , and we get the same cleanness that XHTML 1.1 had ( Strict only .
No transitional shit .
) , and they add cross-language abilities too ( trough SGML ) , then I 'm all for it ! There is an XML mode for HTML5 , see HTML vs. XHTML [ whatwg.org ] .
HTML5 even uses the same xmlns = " http : //www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/ " namespace.HTML5 tries to defines exactly how a browser should handle the billions of unclean documents out there .
This will help browser interoperability in the real worldwide web of garbled HTML , and has huge benefits for script parsing HTML because the DOM contents after reading in HTML should be somewhat similar in different browsers.Despite this , HTML5 specifies very clearly how authors should write HTML .
It separates conformance for authors ( write stuff correctly ! !
) from conformance for browsers ( there are billions of crappy HTML documents out there , deal with it ) .
Read Why does HTML5 legitimise tag soup ?
[ whatwg.org ] : " Just because browsers are required to handle erroneous content , it does not make such markup conforming .
" Have some faith , the HTML5 spec and its writers are wayyyyy smarter than / .
commenters !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if they implement HTML5 right, and we get the same cleanness that XHTML 1.1 had (Strict only.
No transitional shit.
), and they add cross-language abilities too (trough SGML), then I'm all for it!There is an XML mode for HTML5, see HTML vs. XHTML [whatwg.org].
HTML5 even uses the same xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/" namespace.HTML5 tries to defines exactly how a browser should handle the billions of unclean documents out there.
This will help browser interoperability in the real worldwide web of garbled HTML, and has huge benefits for script parsing HTML because the DOM contents after reading in HTML should be somewhat similar in different browsers.Despite this, HTML5 specifies very clearly how authors should write HTML.
It separates conformance for authors (write stuff correctly!!
) from conformance for browsers (there are billions of crappy HTML documents out there, deal with it).
Read Why does HTML5 legitimise tag soup?
[whatwg.org]: "Just because browsers are required to handle erroneous content, it does not make such markup conforming.
"Have some faith, the HTML5 spec and its writers are wayyyyy smarter than /.
commenters!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574863</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1246613820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HTML 5 is based on the DOM. The HTML4-compatible syntax is defined from scratch, it isn't based on SGML because no web browser actually parses SGML correctly. Most of them don't do HTML4.01 fully for that matter (IE doesn't do simple things like &lt;q&gt;, Moz doesn't support all the weird table-column align stuff...).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML 5 is based on the DOM .
The HTML4-compatible syntax is defined from scratch , it is n't based on SGML because no web browser actually parses SGML correctly .
Most of them do n't do HTML4.01 fully for that matter ( IE does n't do simple things like , Moz does n't support all the weird table-column align stuff... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML 5 is based on the DOM.
The HTML4-compatible syntax is defined from scratch, it isn't based on SGML because no web browser actually parses SGML correctly.
Most of them don't do HTML4.01 fully for that matter (IE doesn't do simple things like , Moz doesn't support all the weird table-column align stuff...).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575207</id>
	<title>Will they roll XHTML 2 features into X/HTML 5?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246616340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see a lot of debate here about XML versus SGML (or SGML-like) serialization and parsing rules, and plenty of people (rightly) pointing out that there is an XML version of HTML 5.</p><p>But what about those features which those of us who already code strictly to spec either way really care about? New elements that were scheduled to debut in XHTML 2.0 such as nl, h and section, the ability to put href and src attributes in any element, <a href="http://xhtml.com/en/future/x-html-5-versus-xhtml-2" title="xhtml.com">etc</a> [xhtml.com]?</p><p>Those are the sorts of things which made the debate for me, not some silly XML vs SGML, strict vs lenient debate - either way I'll be writing my code for strict compliance with spec. I'm more concerned with what the features of the spec will be! Less so with how it deals with people out of compliance with it.</p><p>So any news on whether X/HTML 5 will be incorporating any of these, now that it's a W3C project and XHTML 2 is dead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a lot of debate here about XML versus SGML ( or SGML-like ) serialization and parsing rules , and plenty of people ( rightly ) pointing out that there is an XML version of HTML 5.But what about those features which those of us who already code strictly to spec either way really care about ?
New elements that were scheduled to debut in XHTML 2.0 such as nl , h and section , the ability to put href and src attributes in any element , etc [ xhtml.com ] ? Those are the sorts of things which made the debate for me , not some silly XML vs SGML , strict vs lenient debate - either way I 'll be writing my code for strict compliance with spec .
I 'm more concerned with what the features of the spec will be !
Less so with how it deals with people out of compliance with it.So any news on whether X/HTML 5 will be incorporating any of these , now that it 's a W3C project and XHTML 2 is dead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a lot of debate here about XML versus SGML (or SGML-like) serialization and parsing rules, and plenty of people (rightly) pointing out that there is an XML version of HTML 5.But what about those features which those of us who already code strictly to spec either way really care about?
New elements that were scheduled to debut in XHTML 2.0 such as nl, h and section, the ability to put href and src attributes in any element, etc [xhtml.com]?Those are the sorts of things which made the debate for me, not some silly XML vs SGML, strict vs lenient debate - either way I'll be writing my code for strict compliance with spec.
I'm more concerned with what the features of the spec will be!
Less so with how it deals with people out of compliance with it.So any news on whether X/HTML 5 will be incorporating any of these, now that it's a W3C project and XHTML 2 is dead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576383</id>
	<title>Re:HTML 5 parsing is just awful.</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1246626720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Now try to imagine Microsoft, Opera, Mozilla, and Google implementing that compatibly.</i></p><p>Well, considering they're already parsing HTML 1-4, they *already have it implemented*. Their logic might not be exactly the same as the HTML5 logic, but it's not like Firefox/IE/Safari have zero code now to handle that situation. HTML5 just means auditing that behavior to ensure its compatible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now try to imagine Microsoft , Opera , Mozilla , and Google implementing that compatibly.Well , considering they 're already parsing HTML 1-4 , they * already have it implemented * .
Their logic might not be exactly the same as the HTML5 logic , but it 's not like Firefox/IE/Safari have zero code now to handle that situation .
HTML5 just means auditing that behavior to ensure its compatible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now try to imagine Microsoft, Opera, Mozilla, and Google implementing that compatibly.Well, considering they're already parsing HTML 1-4, they *already have it implemented*.
Their logic might not be exactly the same as the HTML5 logic, but it's not like Firefox/IE/Safari have zero code now to handle that situation.
HTML5 just means auditing that behavior to ensure its compatible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576339</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246626360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit. Every person on Earth should be allowed, and encouraged, to create web pages. I hate this elitist crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
Every person on Earth should be allowed , and encouraged , to create web pages .
I hate this elitist crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
Every person on Earth should be allowed, and encouraged, to create web pages.
I hate this elitist crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573127</id>
	<title>Re:XHTML merged</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246644780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone too lazy to code nice neat xhtml shouldn't be allowed to create web pages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone too lazy to code nice neat xhtml should n't be allowed to create web pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone too lazy to code nice neat xhtml shouldn't be allowed to create web pages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573085</id>
	<title>Re:Well this is a surprise...</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1246644360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Much like the sun rising in the east tomorrow. I never quite understood what w3c thought it was doing trying to override browser developers.</i></p><p>Yea, the W3C should have let the browser makers create their own non-compatible markups so we'd have a worthless web.  Or one dominated by a single company, sorry to be repetitive.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much like the sun rising in the east tomorrow .
I never quite understood what w3c thought it was doing trying to override browser developers.Yea , the W3C should have let the browser makers create their own non-compatible markups so we 'd have a worthless web .
Or one dominated by a single company , sorry to be repetitive .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much like the sun rising in the east tomorrow.
I never quite understood what w3c thought it was doing trying to override browser developers.Yea, the W3C should have let the browser makers create their own non-compatible markups so we'd have a worthless web.
Or one dominated by a single company, sorry to be repetitive.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572261</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28577513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28577377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28577135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28592179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28579071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28577135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28592255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28577975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1447237_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1447237.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1447237.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573085
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1447237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572473
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572541
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572969
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572773
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572971
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572951
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573873
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578921
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572489
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575961
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573127
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575543
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575589
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576339
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578183
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28592255
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28577377
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578373
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578503
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578965
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578881
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28577513
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572405
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1447237.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1447237.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575207
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1447237.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1447237.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1447237.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1447237.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1447237.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573089
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573749
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1447237.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573209
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576297
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28577135
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578497
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28579071
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578171
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28578123
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28577975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574273
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28592179
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574863
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574933
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574825
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574395
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28575613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28576231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28574779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572903
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1447237.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28572311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1447237.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1447237.28573583
</commentlist>
</conversation>
