- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:22:04 +0000 (UTC)
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Matthew Thomas wrote: > > > > Disagree. It is very nice if you want the equivalent of several forms > > in a table, say one table row for each form. Since FORM isn't allowed > > to appear mixed in with the table markup, the "form" attribute is a > > reasonable solution. ... > > So instead of inventing a new attribute, why not just change the content > models of TABLE, THEAD, TBODY, TFOOT, and TR to allow FORM elements? Because this would require changing HTML parsers which have been carefully written to be compatible with each other and with existing markup when it comes to dealing with the content models of HTML tables and unexpected elements within them. Implementors are _extremely_ reluctant to even _approach_ their table parsing code. It is also not very compatible with the CSS rendering model. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2004 15:22:04 UTC