- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 03:01:15 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10997 --- Comment #5 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> 2010-10-10 03:01:15 UTC --- > why isn't this in the specification where it belongs? Uh... it is. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-button-element.html#the-option-element says: Content model: Text. So does the W3C copy of the same spec at http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/the-button-element.html#the-option-element > where is optgroup? http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/the-button-element.html#the-optgroup-element and http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-button-element.html#the-optgroup-element Both happen to say: Content model: Zero or more option elements. > I am usually good at finding things. Interesting. The w3.org document above is the second Google hit for "html5 w3c".... and you didn't find it? > the html5 validator tells me optgroup is a singleton (a void element). Really? Can you please link me to the url of the report that claims this? > this is the kind of information that belongs in the HTML5 specification. It IS in the specification. The "Content model" line says exactly what the children of the element are allowed to be. For <img>, it says: Content model: Empty. as it does for every element you seem to call a "singleton". Note that I have _never_ heard anyone refer to elements that canot have children as "singletons" before, ever... Note that the term "void element", as well as various other stuff that makes the spec easier to read for authors is also in the in-progress web developer guide to HTML5 at http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/ -- 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 Sunday, 10 October 2010 03:01:18 UTC