[Bug 12578] The note says: "Omitting an element's start tag does not mean the element is not present; it is implied, but it is still there." 1.) Before the word "start tag" should be an "optional", because in many (or all) other cases omitting the start tag results i

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12578

Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |ian@hixie.ch
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

--- Comment #1 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2011-07-28 01:23:20 UTC ---
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Partially Accepted
Change Description: see diff given below
Rationale: I'm not sure I agree with #2. I don't really understand what "only"
would mean there. With #1, "optional" doesn't seem to be defined in this
context, and so doesn't help any more than "omit". I tried to clarify it
though.

-- 
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 Thursday, 28 July 2011 01:23:22 UTC