- From: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 11:58:53 +0100
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Just to address one point : I will address others later. Lachlan Hunt wrote: > * <embed>fallback</embed> > - pro: consistent with <object> fallback. > - con: not backwards compatible at all, embed is an empty element. Since WHATWG have jettisoned SGML as the foundation on which HTML is based, and gone on to define a parsing model of their own, what is to stop that model from specifying that if an <embed> tag is encountered, the parser is required to look ahead (honouring nesting) until the first unmatched </ ...> tag is encountered. If that tag is </embed> (case-insensitive), then <embed> is being used as a container and parsed as such; if it is anything other than </embed> (case-insensitive), then if it matches the currently open nest it should close it, otherwise the error-handling actions should be invoked. Indeed, given the willingness of the WHATWG to allow constructions such as "<img ... />, could we not take advantage of this to mandate that <img .../> <embed .../> etc., are closures, whilst <img ...> ... </img> <embed ...> ... </embed> etc., are containers ? If we /were/ to adopt this approach, I think that many of my reservations about the current approach would be considerably reduced if not completely eliminated. Philip Taylor
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2007 11:00:11 UTC