W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Re: Short-term workarounds - - <source> in <video>

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:28:08 -0700
Cc: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <E45FB817-5E6A-448D-B1F4-C4C275FE85AB@apple.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>

On Oct 25, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> Leif Halvard Silli On 09-10-25 00.34:
>
>> Maciej Stachowiak On 09-10-24 01.27:
>>> On Oct 23, 2009, at 3:41 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>
>
>>>> Why can't HTML 5 permit that?
>>> I think it would be reasonable (and perhaps on balance a good  
>>> idea) to  allow a close tag for new void elements. Though it would  
>>> have to  immediately follow the open tag - a close tag separated  
>>> by content  would have to be treated as just a stray close tag and  
>>> a parse error.  Otherwise the open tag alone wouldn't work, since  
>>> you would have to  parse to the end of the document to know if  
>>> there is a close tag.
>> Sounds reasonable! Filed a bug report for the issue [1] including a  
>> Liv DOM Viewer demo of browser behaviors [2].
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8038
>
> There is also the option of making closing tags for void elements  
> "obsolete but conforming".

I don't think "obsolete but conforming" is the best choice - we're  
talking about a new construct that authors would use to help them  
transitiion, not an old feature that is ok in older content but should  
be phased out in new content. Thanks for filing the bug, by the way.

> I think it would be possible to have such a rule for *all* void  
> elements - not only the new ones - as user agents deals with things  
> like <img></img> anyhow.

Yes, but I don't think there is ever any reason to write <img></img>  
instead of <img /> or <img>.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Sunday, 25 October 2009 23:28:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:50 GMT