- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:09:24 +0100
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Jonas Sicking wrote: > ... > The problem that I see (which may or may not be the same one as Julian > is trying to solve) is one of forwards compatible parsing. I.e. say Actually, I'm mostly interested in forwards compatible serialization, which seems to be just a subset of the parsing problem. > ... > If we instead allowed the <killswitch/> syntax, all browsers would > produce the same DOM making them easier to work with. > ... Indeed. > I *think* void elements is the only thing destroying the ability to > have forwards compatible parsing right now. If I understand the > parsing algorithm correctly newly introduced block level elements > would only produce a different DOM for invalid markup. I.e. markup > like > > <i><new-block-element>hello</new-block-element></i> > > would produce the same DOM in all browsers, but > > <i><new-block-element>hello</i>hi</new-block-element> > > would produce different DOMs depending on if <new-block-element> is > recognized as a block-level element or not. Please correct me if I'm > wrong. > > I actually think it would be great to support the ending-slash syntax > for all elements in HTML5. I have several times ended up writing > things like <div id=foo></div>, and having it consistently supported > in both HTML mode and foreign content mode would actually reduce the > differences between them which I think is a great thing. > > I have heard of some real world pages that would break if the empty > element syntax was supported everywhere, however I wonder if it's many > enough that we need to adjust HTML to accommodate them. > ... And, if that's the case, there's still the option to allow it only on certain existing elements *and* future elements. BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 31 December 2008 12:10:06 UTC