[Bug 11245] New: I cannot find an explicit statement about XML compatibility of empty attributes. In former XHTML standards, the syntax used to be <input checked="checked".../> Now with the implied value "" of empty attributes, the syntax is <input checked=""/> as I under

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11245

           Summary: I cannot find an explicit statement about XML
                    compatibility of empty attributes. In former XHTML
                    standards, the syntax used to be <input
                    checked="checked".../> Now with the implied value ""
                    of empty attributes, the syntax is <input checked=""/>
                    as I under
           Product: HTML WG
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: Other
               URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#top
        OS/Version: other
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: HTML Canvas 2D Context (editor: Ian Hickson)
        AssignedTo: ian@hixie.ch
        ReportedBy: contributor@whatwg.org
         QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org,
                    public-html@w3.org


Specification: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html
Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html#top

Comment:
I cannot find an explicit statement about XML compatibility of empty
attributes. In former XHTML standards, the syntax used to be
<input checked="checked".../>
Now with the implied value "" of empty attributes, the syntax is
<input checked=""/>
as I understand it. This should be stated explicitly in the appropriate
sections to avoid confusion.
Please let me know whether my interpretation is correct: aquapuma@msn.com
Thank you very much for your work!

Posted from: 213.142.183.127

-- 
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 Friday, 5 November 2010 22:54:04 UTC