- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:48:06 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15304 --- Comment #9 from Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> 2011-12-22 22:48:05 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > There seem two ways of moving forward, either (1) we introduce a new element > that satisfies the above definition of [nestable] Unfortunately, it's *extremely* painful to introduce new elements into <head>, due to backwards compatibility issues. Unknown elements automatically close the <head> and imply <body>. Unless there's an *extremely* good reason why we need a new element in <head>, this isn't a fruitful direction. > or (2) we reexamine the > limitations on <OBJECT> element and once again allow it in the <HEAD> (as it > was in HTML 4). > > My specific preference is for the second approach, but my much stronger more > general preference would be that the HTML 5 specification to allow for the > embedding of arbitrarily complex Microdata in the <HEAD> element. The decision to make <object> imply <body> was made based on backwards compat as well, and by now every modern browser has adjusted to match this (if they weren't already doing so). Again, unless there's a very good reason to allow this, it's not a fruitful direction. You omitted the other two ways of moving forward: (3) Use @itemref to manually establish the scope/prop linkage across sibling <meta> elements in the <head> (4) Use <div>s without any content in the <body> to carry the Microdata. Both of these work today and will continue to work in the future. Why are neither of these acceptable? -- 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 Thursday, 22 December 2011 22:48:08 UTC