- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:13:44 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23152 Bug ID: 23152 Summary: Call out that content model: Text, in HTML, depends on the kind of element Classification: Unclassified Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC URL: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/single-pa ge.html#text-content OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: HTML5 spec Assignee: dave.null@w3.org Reporter: xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no QA Contact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-admin@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org PROBLEM: The spec defines ‘content type’ like so: “A normative description of what content must be included as children and descendants of the element.” http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/single-page.html#element-dfn-content-model And like so: “Each element defined in this specification has a content model: a description of the element's expected contents” http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/single-page.html#element-dfn-content-model However, the exact meaning of such a ”normative description” is not decided by the code but by the result in the DOM: “The contents of an element are its children in the DOM” http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/single-page.html#concept-html-contents However, for most of the ”standard” content models, this is not a problem. For instance, the meaning of “flow content” is unambiguous. But, viewed from code/author level, then, for “content model: Text”, the meaning varies, see below. This is a gotcha. And should be called out in the the very definition of ”content type: Text”. PROPOSAL: Inside the definition of “content model: Text”, call out that the meaning of ”Text” on the *code level* depends on A. Element kind: Whether the element is a normal element, a raw text element, an escapable raw text element etc B. For some of the element kinds: Whether the element occurs inside XHTML or HTML C. Whether there are "extra constraints" D. May be “whether the contents is an element or an attribute” should be mentioned as a condition. (Currently, the “extra constraints” condition, is the only condition that is mentioned) EXACT TEXT SUGGESTION: ”For elements in HTML, the meaning of “content model: Text” also depends the kind of element. For instance, an ”<” inside <textarea> does not need to be escaped in HTML because it is a raw text element. (This does not apply to XHTML. In XHTML, the kind of element doesn’t affect the meaning of ‘content model: Text’)” JUSTIFICATION: The section on Terminology states: “when the specification states that a feature applies to the HTML syntax or the XHTML syntax, it also includes the other. When a feature specifically only applies to one of the two languages, it is called out by explicitly stating that it does not apply to the other format, as in "for HTML, ... (this does not apply to XHTML)".” -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2013 09:13:46 UTC