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: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:37:48 +0200
Message-ID: <48BA666C.2050504@lachy.id.au>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> How? A concrete proposal please.

Provide a way in the authoring tool, XSLT in this case, for authors to 
declare which elements should be serialised as void elements.  This 
could be done in either XSLT itself, or maybe in some user-editable, 
implementation specific config file that lists all the elements that 
need to be serialised as void elements. There are probably other 
possible solutions too.

>>> 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?
> 
> I only tried Saxon, and it creates a start and an end tag.

The inability to control how an element is serialised seems like a 
limitation in XSLT that should probably be fixed in XSLT, rather than 
maintaining that it should place constraints on HTML5's syntax.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2008 09:38:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:22 GMT