- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:32:41 +0100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: >> Ian Hickson wrote: >>> ... >>> Right, but we disagree on this, as noted earlier in this thread. I have to >>> balance all the various needs here. Some of these needs are better satisfied >>> by introducing lots of new void elements frequently; other needs >> Which particular need requires introducing void elements? > > <command> would be basically unusable if you had to include an end tag > each time. Just allow "<command/>". >>>> Could you please explain (or point to an explanation) why exactly it >>>> needs to be known beforehand whether something is block-level or >>>> not? It's certainly not needed for serializing a DOM, so I assume >>>> the parser needs to know for some reason? >>> Block-level elements have to be known by the parser so that optional >>> </p> end tags can be implied. >> Just make the </p> end tags required in this case. Problem solved. > > This solves the problem for people who want to extend the language to add > new block-level elements, and instead introduces a problem for authors who > ... The proposal was to require the end tag *in this case* (where elements not defined in HTML5 are being introduced). How would it affect people not interested in doing that? BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 31 December 2008 12:33:30 UTC