W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2007

Re: DogFood, take 2

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 03:51:01 +0000 (UTC)
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0712070347060.7985@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> You're looking to impose more restrictions when I think less 
> restrictions would make HTML5 more widely adopted in a conformant 
> manner.

The restrictions I think we should have are the ones that would catch 
things that authors might do by mistake and unintentionally.


> Thought experiment: I realize that it is against the tradition of HTML1 
> through HTML4, but what would break if *all* content model restrictions 
> that deal with the distinction between block and inline elements were 
> dropped? Could specific restrictions then be added back in which address 
> specific problems (either of ambiguity or of interoperability)?

What would the following markup mean? (XHTML serialisation)

   <p>
    This is a paragraph.
    <p>This is a paragraph inside it.</p>
    More text.
   </p>

How about this:

  ...
  The term is
   <dfn>
    some text containing:
    <ul>
     <li>
      a list with
      <p> a paragraph </p>
      ...

I think both represent clear cases we don't want to allow, not out of any 
feeling of semantic purity, but simply because in both cases I just don't 
understand what they mean and I would guess that all occurances of such 
markup would be errors.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 7 December 2007 03:51:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:11 GMT