- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 07:24:03 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23145 Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-i | |ua.no --- Comment #2 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> --- Hi Mike. Thanks for your teaching. I shall NOT say that it isn’t helpfull. However, some things needs to be clarified for myself, and in the spec. FIRSTLY, you seem to say that element kind "raw text" and element kind "escapable raw text" are synonym for elements with "content model: Text" But then, why does‘t the "raw text" elements <script> and <style> have content model: Text? (Yeah, in a way they *do* have content model: Text, but that is not what is their "official" content model.) In fact, none of the elements (they are not many) with content model: Text, are listed as being of the "raw text" kind. To underline my point, the spec says, about the content model of <option>: "If the element has a label attribute but no value attribute: Text." However, if you, in text/html, do this: <select><option label='l'><html/></option></select> then you get an error. CONCLUSION: Currently, the meaning of 'content model: Text' depends - not only of text/html vs xml, but also of the *kind* of element. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2013 07:24:04 UTC