W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2012

Re: [whatwg] main element parsing behaviour

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:46:36 +0100
To: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>, "Steve Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <op.wneizylpidj3kv@device-23f190>
On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 11:40:57 +0100, Steve Faulkner  
<faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Anne,
>
> That feedback as stated was mainly for Hixie, who dismissed it.
>
> I have sought further opinion, but do not have the expertise to know  
> what I
> need to do with it.
>
> for example, I get the sense that implementers in general do not want to
> mess with the parsing algorithm, so does that mean. I don't need to put
> anything in the spec?

That's right.

I'm not convinced that we should freeze the parser now just because we  
have reached interop. I think not changing the parser here makes <main>   
(and other future elements; whatever we do here sets a precedent for  
future elements) inconsistent with the rest of HTML. In the long term,  
having <main> and <aside> parse differently just because we didn't want to  
change the behavior from 2012-era browsers will seem silly. Moreover, it  
will complicate the already complicated rules about when </p> may be  
omitted (in terms of how people think of the rule), which means that we  
might have to say that </p> is always required.

I'm also not convinced by Henri's assertion that <p> will not precede  
<main> in conforming content. <p> is used for all sorts of things, not  
just a paragraph of text.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 11:47:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:11 GMT