- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 03:31:25 -0500
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Jul 9, 2007, at 3:12 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > On Jul 9, 2007, at 10:52, Robert Burns wrote: > >> Yes, I understand. The point here was that Henri said that tr >> cannot be a child of table in the text/html serialization. >> However, it can. > > No, it can only look like it to the author who doesn't know how > HTML works on this point. There's a bit of word play going on here that I don't think is at all helpful. When authoring a document, the author want to know what element can I put inside of this table element. Oh, it says here I can put a tr inside here. Great. Telling the author that they don't know how HTML works is just plain silly. HTML is not only the DOM. It is many things. When talking about authoring, the serialization is very important. The fact that the DOM will later infer a tbody in there is an interesting detail for an author to know. However, its not the "real" way HTML works. HTML works with all of this together. <with-the-Henri-attitude> Perhaps I should point you to some serialized HTML so that you can see how HTML really works.</with-the- Henri-attitude> :-) <rant>The thing that frustrates me here. Is that we in the WG already know this stuff. Yet you treat it like there's this magical secret that will soon be revealed to us. Even with the discussion about the parser, we weren't talking about the parse. We were ()and are) talking about an HTML5 UA (including multiple parsers) and how it handles conversions between serializations. But then you shifted the conversation to be about the parser so that you could say: "see the parser doesn't handle XML serializations". Fine, then the conversation wasn't about the parser at all.</rant> Take care, Rob
Received on Monday, 9 July 2007 08:31:34 UTC