- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:40:41 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7978 --- Comment #10 from Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> 2009-10-26 14:40:40 --- (In reply to comment #8) > Because if you apply that in XHTML, then the following perfectly reasonable > (from a parsing point of view; it's clearly invalid) XHTML document won't work > right: > > <body> > <table> > <form> > <tr><td>Some text</td></tr> > </form> > </table> > </body> You could end up with this tree in HTML too with scripting. Does it matter? Could we use :empty instead of :htmlness if it matters, or is that more expensive? > This is a common pattern in HTML authoring, in fact; the display:none is OK in > HTML because in this case the <form> ends up empty when parsed as HTML. -- 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 Monday, 26 October 2009 14:55:17 UTC