- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 22:07:13 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>
- cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > > > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/ > > multipage/sections.html#the-body-element says its content model (this > > part is normative!) is > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/ > > multipage/elements.html#flow-content which is a whitelist of things > > that are allowed in <body> and contains: > > > > link (if the itemprop attribute is present) > > > > So <link> without @itemprop is not allowed as flow content. > > I see. Do you know why? It seems that all browsers support it anywhere, > and this looks like just validator hoop-jumping. The spec has a detailed section that talks about why we have authoring conformance criteria like this: http://whatwg.org/html#conformance-requirements-for-authors The basic idea is to try to help authors by catching things that they probably didn't intend. In the case of <link> in body, the main problem is late loading of style sheets leading to poor performance and flicker. If there are use cases where best practice would involve a <link rel> in the <body>, we can always change the rules here. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 28 November 2013 22:07:36 UTC