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

Re: handling fallback content for still images

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:14:15 -0500
Message-Id: <F195DE77-A568-45BA-8E12-496D5EE4B005@robburns.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
To: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>


On Jul 5, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Thomas Broyer wrote:

>
> 2007/7/5, scott lewis:
>>
>> HTML5 is a language with two serializations (I'll call them): HTML/
>> xml and HTML5/html. These are both representations of the same
>> document. Both serializations of a document must parse identically,
>> otherwise they aren't serializations of the same language. There is a
>> simple test to ensure that: take a document in one serialization,
>> parse it, generate the other serialization from it, then parse the
>> other serialization and require the parsed documents are identical.
>
> ...with the exception of <tbody>'s in <table>'s (are there others?).


Well the issue this comes in is with <img>. I imagine any of the  
canonically empty elements are potential candidates:

 img
 input
 link
 meta
 area
 param
 br
 br
 col
 frame
 isindex
 base
 basefont

Any others?

Though I think there are only a few anyone would likely be tempted to  
add content to. Maybe:
 img
 input
 meta
 link
 frame

Would we need to define UA behavior for handling such authoring  
errors? In other words how to handle going from XML to HTML since I  
don't think there's any lossiness going the other way.. Perhaps these  
nodes would get wrapped in a <p> element in HTM?

I"m not sure. I thought the draft used to talk about this issue of  
different capabilities and different limitations for each of the  
forms of the document (XML, HTML and DOM). I can't find that section  
now.

Take care,
Rob
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2007 22:14:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:46 UTC