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

Re: Are new void elements really a good idea?

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:15:50 -0400
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF0ED0091E.85A38753-ON852574B6.0079A0D9-852574B6.007A4CE2@us.ibm.com>

Henri Sivonen wrote on 08/31/2008 11:59:03 AM:
>
> On Aug 30, 2008, at 23:01, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>
> > Authoring tools shouldn't be considered to be immutable.
>
> Julian does have a legitimate point, though. The question is, what do
> we value more: the language being more elegant or HTML serializer
> developers having to do a little patching and their user having to
> update to a new version.
>
> > <eventsource src="foo"/> is allowed.  Isn't that sufficient?
>
> No, since the whole point is that the serializer needs to know which
> elements are void elements. (You wouldn't want an HTML serializer to
> turn a script element with no children into <script/>.)

script and textarea are fundamentally different from hr and eventsource:
the former may (optionally) have content, the latter are (by rule) always
empty.

If a rule can be adopted to avoid one or the other types of additions, then
a generic authoring tool presented with a DOM containing an unrecognized
element could adopt policy that is future proof: either <name></name> or
<name/>, depending on the approach selected.

Looking at the existing elements and additions, the rule that Lachlan
suggested seems appropriate.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 1 September 2008 01:16:17 GMT

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