Ian Hickson wrote: > On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: >> Ian Hickson wrote: >>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: >>>> Does the spec specify how to parse or serialize a future element called >>>> "foobar"? >>> Yes. >> OK, where, specifically, is the serialization defined? > > It's not allowed. Wow, great. So I conclude that HTML5 does not address extensibility at all. I think it should. > ... >>>>>> That's a very verbose way to state "must ignore unknown values". >>>>> It's a precise way of saying it, that leaves nothing ambiguous. >>>>> That's the whole point. >>>> I think the same precision can be reached with less verbosity. >>> Oh, well, I'm sure it can be said more tersely, sure. (Just out of >>> interest, how would you phrase it?) >> I'd try to reduce repetition. > > I thought I had tried to reduce repetition. Could you show the text you > would use? If it is better, I should use it in HTML5 for equivalent > passages. I would just state what the two allowed values are, and what they indicate. Stating "if ... is present..." is (IMHO) unneeded; it it's not present, it won't have one of the values by definition. > ... BR, JulianReceived on Tuesday, 30 December 2008 14:35:26 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 30 December 2008 14:35:27 GMT