- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:26:33 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5752
Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |simonp@opera.com
--- Comment #3 from Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> 2008-06-14 11:26:32 ---
What would you rather happened with unknown tags in head? Treat them as void
elements? What would you like to happen with unknown tags between </head> and
<body>? Why is it a problem to imply <body> for unknown tags?
If we are to add new elements in head they will have to either be empty or be
(R)CDATA elements that can take the <!--...--> hack as in <script> and <style>
for backwards compatibility anyway, and at that point it doesn't matter if it
implied <body> in legacy UAs -- it'll render the same.
New elements in body OTOH will require you to have an explicit <body> tag if
unknown elements are put in head, otherwise you can't style the new element in
legacy UAs.
Consider:
<!doctype html>
<title>hello</title>
<foo>world</foo>
Should that result in:
DOCTYPE: html
html
.head
..title
...#text: hello
..foo
.body
..#text: world
...or:
DOCTYPE: html
html
.head
..title
...#text: hello
.body
..foo
...#text: world
Per spec currently it's the latter, and personally I think it has a better
forward compat story than the former.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 14 June 2008 11:27:08 UTC