- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 06:40:50 -0500
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Sam Ruby wrote: >> You're looking to impose more restrictions when I think less >> restrictions would make HTML5 more widely adopted in a conformant >> manner. > > The restrictions I think we should have are the ones that would catch > things that authors might do by mistake and unintentionally. Agreed. I intentionally created a footer which consists solely of an anchor tag. The remaining question is whether or not it was a mistake for me to do so. >> Thought experiment: I realize that it is against the tradition of HTML1 >> through HTML4, but what would break if *all* content model restrictions >> that deal with the distinction between block and inline elements were >> dropped? Could specific restrictions then be added back in which address >> specific problems (either of ambiguity or of interoperability)? > > What would the following markup mean? (XHTML serialisation) > > <p> > This is a paragraph. > <p>This is a paragraph inside it.</p> > More text. > </p> > > How about this: > > ... > The term is > <dfn> > some text containing: > <ul> > <li> > a list with > <p> a paragraph </p> > ... > > I think both represent clear cases we don't want to allow, not out of any > feeling of semantic purity, but simply because in both cases I just don't > understand what they mean and I would guess that all occurances of such > markup would be errors. Agreed on both cases. - Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 7 December 2007 11:41:12 UTC