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

Re: DogFood, take 2

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 06:40:50 -0500
Message-ID: <47593142.7090609@us.ibm.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: public-html <public-html@w3.org>

Ian Hickson wrote:
> 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.

Agreed.  I intentionally created a footer which consists solely of an 
anchor tag.  The remaining question is whether or not it was a mistake 
for me to do so.

>> 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.

Agreed on both cases.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 7 December 2007 11:41:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:51 UTC