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

Re: handling fallback content for still images

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:03:18 +0900
Message-Id: <DC21B324-EBD1-4720-BFCD-AD366933D02F@w3.org>
Cc: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>, Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>


Le 9 juil. 2007 à 17:56, Henri Sivonen a écrit :
> The point is that in text/html, there will be a tbody element even  
> if there aren't any <tbody> tags. This *is* confusing, but the  
> confusion is not of our making. We can't remove the confusion  
> retroactively. Removing it going forward would break backwards  
> compat in some way.

I think it would help the discussion each time when people are  
labeling the context.
* in the DOM,
* when authoring,  or in a text file


>> When authoring a document, the author want to know what element  
>> can I put inside of this table element. Oh, it says here I can put  
>> a tr inside here. Great.
>
> The part of the spec that gives the content models of elements  
> really needs to get some warnings for readers who read the spec  
> piecemeal. I am not in any way defending the situation that the  
> spec doesn't warn you about this in that part of the spec.

I said it a few times, there will be high benefits and less confusion  
to split the spec in two. Not many authors want to know the cooking  
inside the browser. The two specs can interlink. A warning will not  
be enough IMHO.

>> Telling the author that they don't know how HTML works is just  
>> plain silly.
>
> Well, if you don't know that an HTML parser infers tbody even when  
> the tags aren't there, you don't know how it works. It is  
> unfortunate that there are gotchas like this, but we didn't put  
> them there and we'd break compat by taking them out.

Henri, again it is a question of perspective or point of view. A  
light bulb for an electrician or for a physicist are completely  
different things. They *both* know how it is working from their own  
perspective. (Cave allegory).
	Saying to people that they don't know is making
	the mistake to ignore them and that they don't
	know their work.
I would encourage to remove the "don't know what you are talking  
about" by specifying the context.


>> HTML is not only the DOM. It is many things.
>
> There's no parent-child elements in the source text. There are  
> tags. When you start talking about parent-child, you should be  
> talking about the document tree or you are confusing things further.

No. Not from the point of view of an author in front of a document  
with tags. :)

>> The fact that the DOM will later infer a tbody in there is an  
>> interesting detail for an author to know.
>
> The *parser* infers it.

The author too but differently by reading the document with his/her  
eyes.

>> Even with the discussion about the parser, we weren't talking  
>> about the parse.
>
> That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense to me. Point of view. ;)



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2007 02:03:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:02 GMT