- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 23:06:17 +0000
- To: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
- CC: public-html-xml@w3.org
On 04/01/2011 22:39, Kurt Cagle wrote: > I'm guessing that the tbody example et al. is particularly significant > in the progressive rendering case? > not necessarily, for example you can style a table by applying a css rule to tbody and it should work in text/html whether or not the tbody is explicit in the markup. If you changed the html parser so that <table><tr><td>aaa</td></tr></table> parsed as it does for xhtml, then any number of things would break as the tbody element would no longer be in the dom so not usable from css or script. tbody isn't the only example, as Henri has pointed out in a parallel thread, the html rules around force-closing the p element will similarly cause even well formed xml documents to have radically different parse trees when parsed as HTML. I may have disagreed with Henri over some edge cases with new (to html) elements where I think there could have been less differences, but I even I wouldn't suggest changing the parsing here to be xml-like. David
Received on Tuesday, 4 January 2011 23:11:57 UTC