- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:47:41 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14486 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> 2011-12-14 07:47:39 UTC --- 1. I thought html5+ was supposed to be backwards-compatible with the existing web. The existing web allows this. I also thought html5+ was supposed to specify what's implemented by browsers. It should be trivial to turn an html4/xhtml1 document into an html5 one. Editors should not have to check if the list items of a given html4/xhtml1 document have to be modified for html5. 2. all existing content editors, wysiwyg or not, allow flow content inside li; that is enough for me to ask to close with bug as wontfix. 3. all existing browsers not only allow flow content inside li but render it perfectly. 4. I confirm a lot of authors use headers inside list items. I don't see why a div containing a long quote from another document (including headers and section) could not be listed. 5. it's still perfectly possible to use CSS to make a div act as a list item with all the model of flow content applying. There is then no technical blocker here. The fact it's possible to use a div and CSS is not a good enough reason to change li's model. If having headers and sections inside a list-item'd div is conceptually ok, I fail to see why it should be nok for li. 6. this bug asks a question but does not suggest how to tweak the content model of li if it's not based on flow content. It seems to me that most elements in flow [1] definition do make sense inside li. Forking flow model into two versions, one for non-listitems and one for listitems seems to me totally overkill. I therefore strongly recommend a WONTFIX, as you probably predicted. [1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/elements.html#flow-content -- Configure bugmail: https://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 Wednesday, 14 December 2011 07:47:42 UTC