Re: handling fallback content for still images

On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:57 PM, scott lewis wrote:

> On 6 Jul 2007, at 1644, Robert Burns wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 2007, at 5:33 PM, scott lewis wrote:
>>>> I think you're confusing the serialized bytestream with the  
>>>> HTML5 document. You must compare the output of your parser  
>>>> (which may be a DOM tree or some intermediary form -- it's  
>>>> entirely an implementation detail) not the serialized form.  
>>>> There are a number of variations in the serialized form which  
>>>> are normalized by the parser.
>> I'm not sure if Thomas is confused. There is certainly an issue  
>> that our recommendations should deal with. In other words when  
>> serializing as XML, should a translating UA include explicit  
>> <tbody> elements when serializing to XMl? There may problems with  
>> doing so, but there will also be problems with not doing so. For  
>> example, a user may wonder why the CSS stopped working simply from  
>> saving to a different serialization.
> How would the CSS break? CSS rules are applied against the DOM and  
> the <tbody> will always be represented in the DOM. (If the element  
> is not present in a serialized document it is inserted into the DOM  
> by the UA.)

That's one approach. That's the way I would go with it too. However,  
for a translating UA, it is only one of the possible ways to  
translate a serialization. So I think we're in agreement about how it  
should be translated. I think the only disagreement is you think its  
the only possible way to translate a serialization and so you think  
there's no reason to address it in our recommendation. I would say it  
is something that needs to be addressed in our recommendation: even  
if just to say that translations should be done through a trip to the  
DOM (which may lose other information then).

Take care,

Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 23:28:35 UTC