- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 18:06:47 +0100
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On 3 Apr 2008, at 17:06, Doug Schepers wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote (on 4/3/08 11:03 AM): >> Once you allow this, the whole <ext> element becomes pointless. > ... >> That violates one of our design principles: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#dom-consistency >> And not even for a good reason once you allow the omission of the >> <ext> tag in source. > > Like I said, I'm not advocating it, and I don't even like the idea. > I was just playing around with details. I'm quite happy to reject > this idea, but the question remains as to what to do when such > content is encountered. Perhaps we allow both scenarios... I'm > convinced that <ext> is better, though. To get around that problem, could we just not put <ext> in the DOM, and effectively lose it at a parser stage? <ext> definitely seems one of the better solutions mentioned. -- Geoffrey Sneddon <http://gsnedders.com/>
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 17:07:34 UTC