- From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:27:11 -0400
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org, "wai-xtech@w3.org" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
At 10:01 PM +0200 27 09 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >All definitions are linked. Although maybe a normative reference at >the end would be good. Ah, I see. My bad. "unordered set of space-separated tokens" is linked. My myopia. I was looking for a link for 'HTML5'. Al >> >On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:34:20 +0200, Al Gilman ><Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org> wrote: >>>The reason the proposal says to only use the first value is >>>because it is unclear what browsers are to do with multiple values >>>at this point. >> >>Place in DOM, for starters. > >The proposal doesn't limit that in any way. In fact, placing in the >DOM is done at the parsing level. This is done at the processing >level of the created nodes. > >>>>* forward reference to HTML5 for the definition of 'token' in the >>>>list-of-tokens value for the role attribute is a problem. >>> >>>Why? >> >>Unnecessary ambiguity in the definition of the proposal. > >It's actually really accurate because of this, which is a good thing >for interoperability testing. I'm not sure what makes you say it's >ambigu. It also makes it a lot more consistent with the rest of the >HTML language. > >>Please give us a link to a definition. > >All definitions are linked. Although maybe a normative reference at >the end would be good. > > >-- >Anne van Kesteren ><http://annevankesteren.nl/> ><http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 20:27:38 UTC