W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > June 2008

[Bug 5752] Parsing should be specified for future updates

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:26:33 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1K7Ttx-00084e-LS@wiggum.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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 14 June 2008 11:27:08 GMT