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

Re: Are new void elements really a good idea?

From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:53:23 +0100
To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20080831105323.GL2588@stripey.com>

Robert J Burns writes:

> On Aug 30, 2008, at 11:01 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>
> > Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> > > there are at least two ways to avoid the problem: ...  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?
>
> As part of a serialized document that needs to be  processed  by a UA
> that does not know what an eventsource element is, it is not
> sufficient. ... These transitional problems are due to deficiencies in
> the text/html  serialization of HTML (... unable to syntactically
> self-differentiate void from non-void elements like XML can with the
> <tagname /> syntax).

Surely "the <tagname /> syntax" is exactly what Lachlan used above?

Smylers
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2008 10:54:00 GMT

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