- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:05:59 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5752 --- Comment #4 from Rob Burns <rob@robburns.com> 2008-06-14 12:05:59 --- > If we are to add new elements in head they will have to either be empty or be > (R)CDATA elements that can take the <!--...--> hack as in <script> and <style> > for backwards compatibility anyway, and at that point it doesn't matter if it > implied <body> in legacy UAs -- it'll render the same. I don't understand what you're saying here. What type of head elements are you saying we could not introduce? Do you mean comments would ned to be treated as not comments? That wouldn't effect most other head element nesting though would it? Only comment nodes. Just trying to make sense of what you wrote. > New elements in body OTOH will require you to have an explicit <body> tag if > unknown elements are put in head, otherwise you can't style the new element in > legacy UAs. I don't see a problem with requiring explicit body tags for future legacy UA compatibility (in other words HTML5 introduces a new body element and that authors can only count on HTML5 UA parsing properly with explicit head and body tags). Once the author is targeting HTML5 UAs, then again they can return to implicit head and body tags. > > Consider: > > <!doctype html> > <title>hello</title> > <foo>world</foo> > > Should that result in: > > DOCTYPE: html > html > .head > ..title > ...#text: hello > ..foo > .body > ..#text: world > > ...or: > > DOCTYPE: html > html > .head > ..title > ...#text: hello > .body > ..foo > ...#text: world > > Per spec currently it's the latter, and personally I think it has a better > forward compat story than the former. Again, I don't think I understand what you're saying about head parsing. What I'm suggesting is neither of the two tree constructions you propose. Instead I'm suggesting: DOCTYPE: html html .head ..title ...#text: hello ..foo ...#text: world .body Though for: <!doctype html> <title>hello</title> <p>from another</p> <foo>world</foo> it would be: DOCTYPE: html html .head ..title ...#text: hello .body ..p ...#text:from another ..foo ...#text: world because the parser wouldn't return to the "in head" insertion mode once entered into the "in body" insertion mode. and for: <!doctype html> <title>hello</title> <foo>from another</foo> world it would be: DOCTYPE: html html .head ..title ...#text: hello ..foo ...#text:from another .body ..#text: world -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 14 June 2008 12:06:35 UTC