W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2005

Re: Nesting <HTML>...</HTML> tag pairs

From: Rob Mientjes <robmientjes@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:30:24 +0100
Message-ID: <e8e97f9f05022122306c7bdefe@mail.gmail.com>
To: neal.p.murphy@alum.wpi.edu
Cc: www-html@w3.org

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:22:41 -0500, Neal Murphy
<neal.p.murphy@alum.wpi.edu> wrote:
> 
> On Monday 21 February 2005 15:53, Rob Mientjes wrote:
> > Well, consider that HTML == root. There is nothing outside of HTML.
> > It's like the galaxy: you know there _has_ to be something, but there
> > isn't. Not even another galaxy, as far as we know.  Also consider that
> > IE wrongly implements HTML as a child of something bigger (* html
> > anyone?), but that's CSS and thus OT.
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned, this is bad behaviour.
> 
> That's fair enough, and is what I expected. My question remains, though. Would
> it be worth ... enhancing the spec to allow HTML documents to be nested?

I'm not sure if you can call it 'enhancing'. Try and lead this back to
XML (or forward, whichever)---XML files are not contained by a generic
element. They are themselves. ::root ring a bell? There should be only
one root, cause it would generate some weird stuff. Same reason why
there can't be more than one reference to an ID in your HTML. It's
unique. So is root, in its own way.

> Second, converting a random MS Word (or Word Perfect, OpenOffice or other)
> document, a text document or an HTML document requires non-trivial effort;
> file formats are rarely openly defined. To do so (converting documents) on a
> recurring basis is even less trivial, because there are no guarantees that
> the source document will be consistent over time.

Specs shouldn't be manipulated to suit the editors.
-- 
Cheers,
Rob.

http://zooibaai.nl  |  http://digital-proof.org  |  http://chancecube.com
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2005 06:30:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:02 GMT