- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:50:08 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Apr 24, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > Edward O'Connor wrote: >>> One thing I strongly believe need to be defined clearly is how HTML >>> fragments, such as those in Atom documents, are to be parsed. >> If this WG adopts the WHATWG draft, I imagine this would be >> handled by the >> innerHTML parsing mode. > > This presumes that all existing markup in existing feeds is > retroactively to be interpreted as HTML5? > > I would have tended to agree with this, but this seems contrary to > the position of some workgroup members that opt-in versioning is > mandatory. Unlike full documents, HTML fragments today don't indicate versioning, so they seem to be a hole in any opt-in versioning scheme. IRight now you can't even tell if an embedded HTML fragment expects standards mode or quirks mode. I alluded to this a bit with my mention of compound documents. At the very least they rule out using a doctype for versioning, but if what is included is not the root element (or indeed not an element at all but a fragment) then there is no reasonable way to indicate a version at all. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:50:27 UTC