- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:26:35 +0300
- To: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Apr 23, 2008, at 16:31, Philip Taylor wrote: > > Henri Sivonen wrote: >> Given the developments in unifying HTML5 and XHTML5 content models >> after WF2 was last revised and the outlook about the role of >> XHTML5, it would make sense to unify the conformance requirement >> regarding nested forms. That is, the spec should make nested forms >> non-conforming for XHTML5. > > I'd like to implement the UI described below - I did it a while ago > with nested forms, and couldn't think of a better way to do it, so > either it would be nice to know a better way or else it would be > nice for it to be conforming. You could do it with non-nested forms and the form='' attribute in both HTML5 and XHTML5 without resorting to scripting in (X)HTML5 UAs. Like <ul> in <p>, this is really about weighing the cost of HTML5, XHTML5 and DOM5 divergence against the benefit of marginal improvements to XHTML5 (that are only available if the author has paid the price of XML) and DOM5. I tend to think that letting XHTML5 and HTML5 diverge is more problematic that saying that more DOM5 tree shapes are conforming, because systems producing HTML5 may use XHTML5 as input, so letting XHTML5 diverge quickly leads to having to observe an HTML5- serializable XHTML5 profile. I don't see harm DOM5 taking non- serializable shapes in apps that otherwise have so much JS state that the Web app state couldn't be easily serialized anyway without the participation of the app. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2008 15:27:17 UTC