W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Are new void elements really a good idea?

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:01:34 +0200
Message-ID: <48B9A71E.50809@lachy.id.au>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:
> So, coming to HTML5, why exactly are we introducing new void elements 
>  such as <eventsource>, knowing that existing code will need to be 
> updated to produce them? The same way HTML5 tries to protect existing 
> Web content, it *should* also try to protect existing code, avoiding 
> totally needless updates.

Authoring tools shouldn't be considered to be immutable.  Like web 
browsers, they too need to be updated to deal with many new features in 
HTML5.  Even the parsers in web browsers need to be significantly 
updated for many reasons, including the parsing of new void elements.

> Furthermore, what's the expectation for future iterations of HTML5, 
> or HTML6? Will there be more void elements, again requiring changes 
> in existing producers?

It's entirely possible that new void elements could be introduced.  But 
instead of trying to restrict the growth of HTML5 based on the designs 
of old authoring tools, the authoring tools should also be updated to 
expect new void elements and be able to deal with them better.

> As far as I can tell, there are at least two ways to avoid the 
> problem:
> 
> 1) Do not introduce new void elements, and state, once for all, that 
> no new elements will be added beyond those in HTML4.
> 
> 2) Keep introducing new void elements, but always allow non-void 
> notation, such as
> 
> <eventsource source="foo"></eventsource>

<eventsource src="foo"/> is allowed.  Isn't that sufficient?

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Saturday, 30 August 2008 20:02:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:57 UTC